Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.68 seconds)

Sohanlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2020

During investigation statement of Makhanlal Soni, Nitesh, Anil, Neeraj, Gopal , Anil and Kamlesh have been recorded. It is cleared from the statement of witnesses, disputed house was name of the petitioner- accused. Petitioner-accused is elder brother of deceased and Makhan Lal. Disputed house was got in Criminal Revision No. 1433/2019 (Sohanlal Vs. State of M.P. 10 partition to the deceased but the disputed house was in the named of the petitioner-accused. Petitioner-accused was not ready to give that house to the deceased.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R K Srivastava - Full Document

Malsingh And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 1983

28. The most crucial and controversial questions that arise for consideration in the present appeal are whether the appellants can be held guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter if not, whether despite their acquittal under Section 302/34 I.P.C. they can be convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Mr. Gour. vehemently urged that if the evidence of P. W. 5 Smt Balbirkaur is discarded. then there is no ocular evidence on record to the effect that the accused Bharatsingh inflicted blows with gandasi and the accused Malsingh inflicted blows with Salang. Simply on the basis of the recovery evidence of weapons, it cannot be found that the gandasi was used by the accused Bharatsingh and Salang was used by the accused Malsingh. He further submitted that even if it is found on the basis of recovery evidence that the accused Bharatsingh used the gandasi and Malsingh used the Salang, the conviction of the accused Malsingh under Section 302 simpliciter is not sustainable (sic) as the blunt weapon injuries on the person of Surjeetsingh (deceased), are not in the nature of lecerated wounds and they were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Mr. Gaur urged that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellants with regard to the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. so now with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. none of the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. In support of his contention, Mr. Gour placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sohanlal v. The State of U.P. 1971 SCC (Cri) 206 : 1971 Cri LJ 1458 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab 1977 SCC (Cri) 177 : 1977 Cri LJ 164.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Assam vs Suprabhat Bhadra And Ors. on 5 January, 1982

In examining the matter thus we have been immensely benefited by the discussion of this subject by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ibrahim 1978 Cri LJ 1157 which upheld the view taken by a single Judge in Sohanlal v. State has noted the different aspects involved, and has dealt with some other decisions cited at the Bar. As we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by that Bench except that the statement cannot be used for prosecution of perjury, we have not burdened this judgment with the case law.
Gauhati High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Sohanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-609-2017 (SOHANLAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Considering the evidence available on record and period of custody, the application is allowed and it is directed that the substantial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and appellant Sohanlal shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.9.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next