Raj Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 August, 2016
Crl. Appeal No. 81/16 Raj Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 101 (3.04 seconds)Documents citing
Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar à Appellants vs State Of Bihar & Anr. à Respondents on 4 January, 2007
Raj Kumar vs The State on 24 January, 2023
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.01.24
MEENA 16:42:53 +05'30'
(Ashish Kumar Meena)
Civil Judge-01(SW)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
24.01.2023
Civil Suit No. 302/21 Raj Kumar vs. State and anr.
Mallikarjun @ Malik S/O Ramu Katake vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2013
In the case of RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
TAMARKAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in
2007 (10) SCC 433, it was held that the non-
examination cannot be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In all these cases, it was held that merely
because an expert was not examined, the court cannot
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
Mohd Abeed S/O Abdul Bari vs The State Of Karnataka Through ... on 26 June, 2013
In the case of RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
TAMARKAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in
2007 (10) SCC 433, it was held that the non-
examination cannot be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In all these cases, it was held that merely
because an expert was not examined, the court cannot
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
Muneer Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2013
In the case of RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
TAMARKAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in
2007 (10) SCC 433, it was held that the non-
examination cannot be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In all these cases, it was held that merely
because an expert was not examined, the court cannot
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
Kokilaben vs State Of on 15 March, 2013
36. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant had not been able
to prove his alibi. He did not examine any witness to support his
case. He did not offer any explanation whatsoever as to why for about
a month he was absconding. In a situation of this nature where
admittedly the husband, wife and children were residing in one room,
the prosecution having been able to prove that apart from the minor
children, at the time of occurrence it was he and the deceased alone
who were residing in the house, it was for the appellant to prove
that how the deceased had met her death. This aspect of the matter
was considered by this Court in Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar vs. State
of Bihar.
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2012
In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkkar v. State of Bihar, this Court
held:(SCC p. 440, paras 22-23).
Raffiuddin vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2013
In the case of RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
TAMARKAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in
2007 (10) SCC 433, it was held that the non-
examination cannot be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In all these cases, it was held that merely
because an expert was not examined, the court cannot
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
Mahibbob Pasha @ Shahn @ Vekeel vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2013
In the case of RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
TAMARKAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER reported in
2007 (10) SCC 433, it was held that the non-
examination cannot be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In all these cases, it was held that merely
because an expert was not examined, the court cannot
disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
Tomaso Bruno And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2012
This principal has been explained in the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (1) Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 716 paragraph-25, (2) Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 paragraphs-15 and 18, and (3) State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 paragraph-22.