Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Ajayab Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 1986

Udai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 1987

It was distinguishable on the ground that when the case had come to the Court of Sessions, powers under Section 319 of the Code could only be invoked The decisions in Ajayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1976 RLW 9 and Harji Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1979 Cr. LR (Raj.) 240 which were overruled by Sheoram Singh's case also related to the case where (he matter was before the Sessions Court after commitment by the Magistrate and not before the Magistrate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao S/O Doma Udan And Others on 28 July, 1995

26. Shri H. Ahmad, the learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently argued that the complainant party received more injuries and serious injuries in comparison to the accused. This circumstance, according to the learned A.P.P. is sufficient to hold that the accused were aggressor. The learned A.P.P. for the State further submitted that it is not a universal rule that merely because some injuries are found on the person of the accused, presumption of the exercise of the right of private defence at once springs up. In the instant case, there is a great disproportion between the number of injuries inflicted on the victims and sustained by some of the accused and hence those who had inflicted the graver and the larger number of injuries were the aggressors. To substantiate his submission the learned A.P.P. for the State has placed reliance on a case of Ajayab Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 Cri LJ 1495 (Raj).
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Krishna Nandan Sharma & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2014

29. Learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2013 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajayab Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1986 CRI.L.J. 1495 Paragraphs 21, 22 and Nagesar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 672 Paragraphs 3, 6, 10 to 14 and submitted that mere presence of the appellants with arms along with the assailants of the three deceased will not constitute offence under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code unless there is further evidence to indicate that these appellants also had knowledge of the common object of the assembly of which the assailants were the member and committed the offence. In this connection he also submitted that there has been no recovery of any arms from these appellants. On merit of the evidence learned counsel pointed out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite established that the deceased having suffered gun shot fell down Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014 40 at the place where they suffered injury but the recovery of the dead body from the two different places far away from the place where shots were fired is indicative of the fact that prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Krishna Nandan Sharma & Anr on 26 September, 2014

29. Learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2013 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajayab Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1986 CRI.L.J. 1495 Paragraphs 21, 22 and Nagesar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 672 Paragraphs 3, 6, 10 to 14 and submitted that mere presence of the appellants with arms along with the assailants of the three deceased will not constitute offence under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code unless there is further evidence to indicate that these appellants also had knowledge of the common object of the assembly of which the assailants were the member and committed the offence. In this connection he also submitted that there has been no recovery of any arms from these appellants. On merit of the evidence learned counsel pointed out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite established that the deceased having suffered gun shot fell down Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014 40 at the place where they suffered injury but the recovery of the dead body from the two different places far away from the place where shots were fired is indicative of the fact that prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Chhote Sharma & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2014

29. Learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2013 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajayab Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1986 CRI.L.J. 1495 Paragraphs 21, 22 and Nagesar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 672 Paragraphs 3, 6, 10 to 14 and submitted that mere presence of the appellants with arms along with the assailants of the three deceased will not constitute offence under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code unless there is further evidence to indicate that these appellants also had knowledge of the common object of the assembly of which the assailants were the member and committed the offence. In this connection he also submitted that there has been no recovery of any arms from these appellants. On merit of the evidence learned counsel pointed out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite established that the deceased having suffered gun shot fell down Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014 40 at the place where they suffered injury but the recovery of the dead body from the two different places far away from the place where shots were fired is indicative of the fact that prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Umesh Sharma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2014

29. Learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2013 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajayab Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1986 CRI.L.J. 1495 Paragraphs 21, 22 and Nagesar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 672 Paragraphs 3, 6, 10 to 14 and submitted that mere presence of the appellants with arms along with the assailants of the three deceased will not constitute offence under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code unless there is further evidence to indicate that these appellants also had knowledge of the common object of the assembly of which the assailants were the member and committed the offence. In this connection he also submitted that there has been no recovery of any arms from these appellants. On merit of the evidence learned counsel pointed out that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is quite established that the deceased having suffered gun shot fell down Patna High Court D. REF. No.12 of 2013 dt.26-09-2014 40 at the place where they suffered injury but the recovery of the dead body from the two different places far away from the place where shots were fired is indicative of the fact that prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

State vs . Nawabuddin & Others on 25 May, 2010

(i) Ajayab Singh and others Vs State of Rajasthan: Mere presence in or near unlawful assembly does not make one member of unlawful assembly. The mere presence of a person in or near the unlawful assembly is not sufficient to show that he was also a member of the unlawful assembly. It must be proved that he also shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove this fact. It is a question of fact in each case whether a person 8 happens to be innocently present at the place of occurrence or was actually a member of the unlawful assembly. One may be present at the place of occurrence innocently and out of curiosity. Simply because one is present in or near the unlawful assembly, it cannot be assumed that he was a member of that unlawful assembly. But the question remains as to whether he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is only when he shares the unlawful common object of the assembly that he becomes a member of it. There must be some evidence of participation by him before holding that he is a member of the unlawful assembly. Simply because a person is close relative of accused persons, he cannot be taken to be the member of the unlawful assembly."
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1