Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Nathu Lal & Others vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2018

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 December, 2022

case and after recording of the evidence, he must hear the arguments and reserve the judgment in that case as well. The same learned Judge must, thereafter, dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. For deciding each of the cases, he shall rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case without looking at the evidence recorded in the cross-case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Nathu Alias Shambho And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 December, 2019

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 13.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Amroha, in Bail Application No. 1439 of 2019 (CNR No.-UPJB010043112019 (Nathu and others Vs. State of U.P), arising out of case crime no. 243 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 IPC and Section 3 (1 (d) (dh) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Adampur, District- Amroha, is hereby set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Chaturvedi - Full Document

Ravindra Maruti Patil And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 January, 2024

9 There is no dispute about the fact that the principle laid down in Nathilal and Misrilal (supra) is followed by the learned trial Judge as the cross-cases are tried separately by him and two separate judgments are delivered. Except one witness Dr.Manohar Sarnaik, whose evidence is relied upon in Sessions Case No.100/1993, separate witnesses in support of the two prosecution cases are examined.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Vishnu Kisan Lakhe vs The State Of Maharastshsa on 2 January, 2024

9 There is no dispute about the fact that the principle laid down in Nathilal and Misrilal (supra) is followed by the learned trial Judge as the cross-cases are tried separately by him and two separate judgments are delivered. Except one witness Dr.Manohar Sarnaik, whose evidence is relied upon in Sessions Case No.100/1993, separate witnesses in support of the two prosecution cases are examined.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

Siva Sakthi Iyyappan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 January, 2026

19. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P.2 and reiterated with clarity by this Court in T. Balaji v. State3, it is evident that when a case and counter-case arise out of the same occurrence, fairness in criminal administration mandates that both cases shall be investigated by the same Investigating Officer, placed before the same Court, and tried by the same Judge, one after the other, so as to obviate conflicting findings and ensure discovery of the real aggressor. 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 2 (1990) Sup SCC 145 3 2024-2-L.W.(Crl) 175 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2019

To come to this conclusion let us see the facts of both the cases. The case of prosecution is that prosecutrix was allegedly raped by Gurpreet Singh @ Aman and Balwinder Singh in connivance with Shinder Pal Kaur and Sandeep Singh. The case of the prosecution is further that prosecutrix committed suicide because of her having been raped. The case of the defence is that the prosecutrix had illicit relations with one Manpreet Singh. Since Manpreet Singh was in relationship of 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2020 01:18:12 ::: CRA-D-60-DB of 2015 (O&M) & other connected cases (16) complainant party, therefore, they had objected to this. It is further case of the defence that since Paramjit Kaur deceased was turned out of her parental house of Badshahpur, both of them consumed poison and then the entire story had been concocted. The defence wants to rely on FIR No. FIR No.1 dated 12.01.2013 under Section 309 IPC relating to Manpreet Singh. Thus, both prosecution as well as defence are heavily relying on the facts and evidence of both the cases. But since the trials have been separately held and evidence has been separately recorded in both the FIRs, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nathi Lal and others versus State of U.P. 1988 SC (Criminal) 638 which laid the law that evidence of one case cannot be looked into the other case and the Court has to decide the case without being influenced by the evidence of other case, this Court cannot read the evidence of both the cases together. We find that in order to deliver justice, the evidence and facts of both the cases have to be gone through together and then only the Court can decide whether the appellants are guilty or not.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - H S Gill - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Chamanji @ Gordhanji Himmatji Thakore on 24 April, 2026

18. Scanning the entire set of oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, it emerges that both the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined parties have filed cross-case against each other. Accused- Ambalal has filed the F.I.R. being I.C.R.No.145 of 1998 while Jadiben lodged the F.I.R. being I.C.R.No.146 of 1998. The said FIR was not proved on record. Further, from the record of the trial, it emerges that the cross-cases were not tried in accordance to the dicta laid-down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1990 (Suppl) SC 145 & State of M.P. Vs.Mishrilal reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426. It also emerges from the record that there is a material contradiction regarding the time of occurrence of the incident. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness though Jadiben, Hansaben and Investigating Officer, in their cross-examination, admitted that at the time of incident, the other independent witnesses were also available. The Investigating Officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness. When both the parties have lodged the cross-FIR against each other, In that facts and circumstances of the case, the deposition of the independent witness becomes material to bring the truth on record, but that was not done in the present case. All the panch-witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution even the recovery panch-witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution. When panch- witnesses turned hostile, the Investigating Officer can prove the recovery and the content of the panchnama, but scanning the oral testimony of the Investigating Officer, it emerges that the Investigating Officer has also not proved the contents of Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Apr 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 05:52:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/350/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026 undefined the panchnama. Hence, the recovery was not proved on record. Scanning the defence witnesses i.e. the father of the deceased-Kishanji & Lilaben, sister-in-law (Foi) of the deceased also supported the versions of the defence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

2002) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2021

The law as laid down by the Apex Court concerning case and counter case in Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P. and anothers 7 reported in 1990(Supp) Supreme Court cases 145 is that both the cross cases must be tried by same learned judge one after another and both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned judge one after the other but that does not seem to be a case in hand because only exhibits pertaining to the counter-case, which is formal FIR pertaining to Govindpur P.S. case no. 35 of 2002(Ext.-A) and its charge sheet(Ext.-B) have been filed by the appellant and judgment in the aforesaid counter- case arising out of Govindpur P.S. case no. 35 of 2002 has not been brought on record or exhibited. Therefore, I have only the evidence on which reliance is placed and given the evidence of the informant PW-4 as well as the corroboration of the doctor PW-5 and the evidence of both the eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 who have also deposed that they were present during the time of the occurrence and have stated in the evidence that measurement of the land was done when the conflagration began and have testified regarding the occurrence in manner only supports the fardbayan.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Bhengra - Full Document
1   2 Next