Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Mulakh Raj Etc vs Satish Kumar And Others on 10 April, 1992

Monoranjan Das vs Pulak Dutta And 5 Ors. on 3 December, 2002

In all the relevant reported judgments referred to above it has been the principle universally settled that in a revision against acquittal by a private complainant interference of the High Court will be called for when it is evident that the Trial Court shut out any evidence which the prosecution wanted to produce or admitted any inadmissible evidence or overlooked any material evidence. (Vide the decision and ). Here although there is no case that the ld. Court below has shut out any evidence or has taken any inadmissible evidence but it is palpable that the ld. Trial Judge has failed to consider some material evidence constituting certain circumstances which ought to have been dwelt upon by the Trial Court for the purpose of determining whether the prosecution charge against the accused person had been substantiated thereby. But the ld. Trial Judge having overlooked such evidence and has not considered them from the point of view as indicated above and as a result thereof there has been a manifest illegality giving rise to a gross miscarriage of justice. In that view of the matter, intervention of this revisional Court has become necessary in order to set right the patent wrong.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 222/10 State vs . Shahnawaz. Page No. 1/131 on 21 July, 2016

65. Contrary to the case of the accused, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mulakh Raj v. Satish & Ors, 1992 Cri.L.J. 1529 and Sooguru Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P., IV (2013) SLT 428 is dealing with the correct proposition of law that FIR No. 222/10 State Vs. Shahnawaz. Page No. 101/131 motive lost significance where the circumstances have proved the involvement of the accused. In this case, the prosecution has proved that the circumstances against accused that accused was alone with the deceased at the time of incident and deceased had no enmity with anyone and even no other one entered into the house and, defenses of the accused have been proved false. As such,all the circumstantial evidence have duly proved that accused has committed this offence the guilty. Even otherwise, in this case, the dowry demand of a big car instead of motorcycle is the motive of the accused to commit the offence and PW1 and PW2 have duly proved this fact and PW4 has corroborated it. The testimony of PW2 / mother is un-rebutted that on 10/7/2010, deceased called her and disclosed that accused had been harassing her for not fulfilling his demand of big car and the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has duly corroborated her testimony before this court that the accused had been harassing her and it was the motive of the crime. As such, the plea taken by the accused that there was no motive to the accused to commit this offence is not sustainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014

In this regard reference has been made to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (1992) 3 SCC 43, Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar. It was argued before the Supreme Court that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and motive being absent, the prosecution had failed to establish the important link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court observing as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 384 - Cited by 4 - G Mittal - Full Document

Maruti Ganpat Nale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Adn Anr on 31 July, 2019

56. Learned APP has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mulakh Raj and Others Vs. Satish Kumar and Others (supra) to submit how the injuries brought on record by PW 7 doctor negate the hanging and support throttling. We have perused paragraph 7, 9, 12 in the said judgment. We have already noted that the injury nos. 2 and 3 are placed on either side of windpipe of deceased.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vivek Maruti Nale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 July, 2019

56. Learned APP has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mulakh Raj and Others Vs. Satish Kumar and Others (supra) to submit how the injuries brought on record by PW 7 doctor negate the hanging and support throttling. We have perused paragraph 7, 9, 12 in the said judgment. We have already noted that the injury nos. 2 and 3 are placed on either side of windpipe of deceased.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Pal Singh And Other vs State Of U.P. on 7 March, 2018

59. The judgment in the case of Mulakh Raj Vs. Satish Kumar (supra) has also dealt with that whenever a case hinges upon circumstantial evidence, then the unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused had committed the crime should be established. Further, if any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of a doubt. The guidelines laid down in that case by the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 4 are as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs James Kumar Ray @ James on 6 November, 2019

In support of the contention, the Public prosecutor relies the judgment reported in 1992 SCC 482 (Mulakh Raj Vs. Satish Kumar). In the said judgment in paragraph No.17 Lordships have held that when facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. I feel in the case in hand, the circumstances stated above, supports the revenge/grudge of the accused against the 34 SC.No.1297/2015 husband of the deceased, thereby, he hatched a plan of sadistic approach and made to suffer the husband of the deceased by killing his wife.
Bangalore District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sunday Chinaka Uchem & Ors on 30 March, 2022

In the case of Mulakh Raj and Others vs Satish Kumar and Others (1992)3 SCC 43, it was held that undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a mat- ter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for convic- tion. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case.
Delhi District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next