Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Smt J Manjula, M.Sc., M.Phil, S.E.L.T. vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2017

Sanjula Devi vs The State on 14 September, 2022

7. PW­3 Radhey Shyam, employee of Northern Railways, stated that he knew the petitioner. It is stated by PW­3 that the husband of the petitioner was employed with Western Railways. It is stated by PW­3 that the petitioner was residing with deceased Ghanshyam as his wife in a quarter allotted by Indian Railways. It is stated by PW­3 that the petitioner and Ghanshyam had two children. It is stated by PW­3 that the deceased died at Kota (Rajasthan) and he attended the last Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 6/18 ceremony of the deceased. It is stated by PW­3 that last rites of Ghanshyam was performed by petitioner and her son Raju. It is stated by PW­3 that he used to visit the house of Ghanshyam. It is stated by PW­3 that mother­in­law of the petitioner also used to visit their house. In his cross­examination, it is stated that he is not sure whether the petitioner was married with Ghanshyam. It is stated by PW­3 that he does not know the other family members of Ghanshyam except the mother of the deceased. It is stated by PW­3 that parents of Ghanshyam and respondent were also present at the time of death of deceased. It is stated by PW­ 3 that he has no knowledge whether the deceased Ghanshyam had also one another wife, who was residing at his native village.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Guduru Pakkiramma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2019

The issue as regards satisfaction arrived at on grounds of 'public order' and "public peace and law and order' and its consequences, came Up for consideration before a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Vasanthe Sumalatha wv. State of Andhra Pradesh?, wherein, the Division Bench, having dealt with the expressions 'public order' and law and order' in detail and having referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. C.Anita ((2004) 7 SCC 467], Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar pao74) 1 $cc 485], Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra r(1992) 2 SCC 177], T.K&.Gopal v. State of Karnataka ((2000) 6 5CC 42046 (L) ALT 728 (DBS MERE sages Be nrennseesiss HAIR NISRA WENO. ATO?
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baban Bhagaji Makale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 August, 2021

Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. Law and order represents the largest scale within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of State. "Law and order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order" just as "public order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State". [See Kuso Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1974 (1) SCC 185, Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra (1992 (2) SCC 177, T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka (2000 SCC 168, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980 (2) SCR 1158)] and Commissioner of Police v. C. Anita (2004(7) SCC 467). "
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Girish on 1 June, 2022

In the reliance of 2014 (4) Kar.L.J 259 (SC) Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 38 addressed the issue in respect of the provision of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also as regards the provision of Section 300 of IPC, 1860 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence- Each of circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, giving no room for any hypothesis, other than guilt of accused- None of circumstance, in instance case, held, satisfies this standard - Investigation in instant case is directed at proving pre-conclusion that accused was guilty, rather than other way round with investigation leading to conclusion that he was guilty - Judgment and order of High Court convicting accused set aside, and accused acquitted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Anita Jain vs The State on 31 July, 2023

14. It was the submission on behalf of petitioner that since Section 325 IPC is a heinous offence, R-2 should not be released on probation of good conduct. Ld. Counsel for petitioner in support of his arguments placed reliance on Rajender Dutt Vs. State of Haryana 1993 CRI.L.J 1025, Manjapaa Vs. State of Karnataka 2007, CRI.L.J 3220, Shakeel Ahmad Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (4) JCC 2777, Virender Singh Vs. State 43 (1991) DLT 546, Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000 CRI.L.J 2283, Ram Narayan & ors. Vs. State of UP 1971 CRI.L.J 649, Emperor Vs. Bhano Bhojo AIR (31) 1944 Sind 186. In all the above referred cases the benefit of probation of offender Act for Section 360 Cr.P.C. was not afforded to the convict. However, none of these cases referred have the facts similar to the case in hand. In none of the above cases, it was a fight between two brothers on a little issue of parking. In none of the cases, the accused had no previous antecedents nor they were suffering from any life threatening disease like cancer.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1