Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Jeet Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2000

Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2023

3. Intentionally causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.--Whether the injuries caused to the victim were sufficient for causing death of the victim can be inferred from the nature of injuries and act of the accused. Where the injury is caused on vital part of the body, therefore, death is more likely to result than an injury caused on a non-vital part of the body. An injury may be simple, grievous or superficial. The nature of weapon used by the accused is also taken into consideration while deciding his guilt [Jagrup Singh (supra)]. Lethal weapons such as gun, pistol, revolver, sword, spear, dagger etc. may prove more fatal than the non-lethal weapons such as lathi, stick, bamboo, fist-blow etc. Whether the bodily injury caused by the accused was likely to cause death has to be decided objectively keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, accused had attacked his deceased mother with the blunt part of the axe not from the sharp edged part of the axe.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 30 September, 2014

In Jeet Singh vs State of Punjab, 1979 (1) SLR 604, the Supreme Court held that "the appellants were, in any view of the matter, not eligible for promotion as their names were not included in list 'G' as it emerged from the Public Service Commission in 1970. The High Court therefore cannot be blamed if it took the view that as the appellants had not qualified for promotion when list 'G' was drawn up by the State Government in 1966, they could not succeed in their claim in the writ petition."
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Gupta vs Punjab And Haryana High Court And Others on 18 March, 2025

In Jeet Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1979(1) SLR 604 604,, the question fell for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In para 8 of the judgment udgment it has been held that those petitioners lacked locus standi to file a petition because they were not qualified for promotion and they did not have any right for promotion prior for the selected candidate nor they could succeed in their claim."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next