Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Gajanand And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Ceveator: ... on 18 March, 1954

Ashok @ Hasmukh Punamchand Chhovala & vs The State Of ... on 29 April, 2014

In Gajanand v. State of U.P., it is observed : (Cri LJ p. 1749 : (AIR 1954 SC 695) para 5) "A free fight is one where both sides mean to fight from the start, go out to fight and there is a pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such event is wholly immaterial and depends upon the tactics adopted by the rival commanders." If that is the nature of the fight, in the instant case, then the witnesses have completely given a different and distorted version. At any rate there is absolutely no scope to convict any of the appellants under Section 304, Part II simpliciter as there is absolutely no material as to which one of them caused the single injury on the head of the deceased. Nor can they be convicted under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 as it is not possible to hold that they were members of an unlawful assembly. Further the number is less than five. In any event the High Court has doubted the prosecution version as a whole. Thus there are any number of infirmities in the prosecution case. For all these reasons, the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants are set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed."
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Shivraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023

8. Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Gajanand Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1954 SC 695, Munir Khan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 and Puran Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 SC 912 had contended that when two parties are involved in free fight, then individual act of the person are required to be seen. In that context when the allegations levelled against the present applicant are seen in its entirety, it prima facie appears that he was one of the aggressors and his role is of causing injury to Parasram Meena on his head which is a vital part of the body. If the role of the other co-accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail are seen; Rahul Gurjar have assaulted the injured by means of Luhangi and had inflicted injury on left hand elbow and waist. Similarly Raman Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 15-12-2023 01:29:31 PM 5 Gurjar has assaulted with Luhangi and had caused injury on left hand elbow and likewise Sangram Gurjar is said to have assaulted the injury with Pharsi sustaining injury on his waist. Another co-accused Mohar Singh Gurjar is said to have assaulted Manoj Meena with lathi and has caused injury on his hip and waist and accused Kalla have assaulted complainant with hands and fists and co-accused Sanju is stated to have caused injury on the shoulder of complainant, which all are non-vital part of the body. The alleged injury caused by the applicant is on the head which is a vital part of the body, and therefore, his act is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail. It is also noteworthy that the first application for anticipatory bail was rejected in the month of June, 2023 and thereafter the present applicant after a lapse of more than five months had preferred this application which does not appear to be bonafide.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Abdul Hamid And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 30 October, 1990

In Gajanand v. State 1954 CR. LJ. 1746 it is observed "A free fight is one where both sides mean to fight from the start, go out to fight and there is a pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such event is wholly immaterial and depends upon the tactics adopted by the rival commandos." If that is the nature of the fight, in the instant case, then the witnesses have completely given a different and distorted version. At any rate there is absolutely no scope to convict any of the appellants under Section 304 Part II simplciter as there is absolutely no material as to which one of them caused the single injury on the head of the deceased.Nor can they be convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 as it is not possible to hold that they were members of an unlawful assembly. Further the number is less than five. In any event the High Court has doubted the prosecution version as a whole. Thus there are any number of infirmities in the prosecution case. For all these reasons, the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants are set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Dwarka Prasad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 February, 1993

The Doctor in Court stated that possibility of self- infliction of that injury could not be ruled out. According to the State, even if the version disclosed by the appellant is accepted, it will amount to a case of free fight between the prosecution party and the accused, both being armed and when there is a free fight there is no question of right of private defence accruing to any side. A free fight is that when both sides mean to fight a pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival party. In such cases of mutual fights, both sides can be convicted for their individual acts. This position has been settled by this Court in the cases of Gajanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 695; Kanbi Nanji Virji v. State of Gujarat AIR 1970 SC 219; Puran v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 912 and Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 414. As such once it is established by the prosecution that the occurrence in question is result of a free fight then normally no right of private defence is available to either party and they will be guilty of their respective acts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - N P Singh - Full Document

Siraj vs State on 28 January, 2012

Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court has gone through the charge sheet papers along with injury certificates of injured persons together decisions relied on by learned Public Prosecutor, Mr.Raju. This Court cannot dispute the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the decisions relied on by Mr.Raju. However, it may be noted that all the aforesaid decisions relied on by Mr.Raju were rendered at the end of trial after appreciating the entire evidence on record. Hence, this Court would not like to give any weightage to those decisions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next