Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 170 (6.54 seconds)
Documents citing Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2000

Dharambir @ Illa & Ors. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Kamala & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Karampal vs The State Of Haryana on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Ramphal & Anr. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

State & Anr. vs Jasbir @ Lillu on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. vs Kulwinder & Ors. on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Kulwinder vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 August, 2018

300. The Court next deals with the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Rajan who has appeared on behalf of A-1, A-29, A-79, A-18, A-5, A-52, A-66, and A-63. At the outset, he submits that the POA Act would not be applicable to the present case as the offences were not committed on the ground that the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. He has placed reliance on the decisions in Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in this regard. He further submits that as per Section 3(2)(v) POA Act as it stood prior to amendment, it was not enough to show mere knowledge on the part of the accused of the victims‟ membership of a Scheduled Caste but in fact, the prosecution had to fulfil its burden of showing that the offences were committed against them on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Delhi High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 September, 2025

In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it vi/as being done on the ground of caste."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramireddy Prathap Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 September, 2025

In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurdip Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2008

In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (supra) there were 10 injuries on the body of the deceased and only one injury was serious, other injuries were caused during scuffle. It was held that the accused had no intention to commit death and the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC was set aside and the accused therein was convicted under Section 304, Part II IPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S S Saron - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next