Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Mt. Har Piari And Ors. on 30 June, 1926

State vs Shankar Prasad And Anr. on 29 February, 1952

17. The second case relied upon is 'EMPEROR v. MT. HAR PIARF, AIR 1926 All 737. In that case a man died in his own house surrounded by his own family and poisoned shortly after eating food which must have been prepared by his wife. No explanation was forthcoming from the occupants of the household as to what had happened to him to cause his death. The accused were proved to have been guilty of persistent lying in an attempt to account for the absence of the deceased and were also shown to have hidden the corpse to save themselves from the offence. In these circumstances a presumption against the accused was made. The facts are distinguishable. Here the only evidence against the appellant is the recovery of the stolen articles, the other factors are all in their favour. The circumstances of the present case are Quite distinguishable from those of 'HAR PIARI'S CASE'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Harbans Lal vs The State on 30 July, 1965

23. The learned Government advocate had, in support of his contention, that mere removal of the dead body amounted to causing disappearance of the evidence of murder, placed reliance on Emperor v. Autar, AIR 1925 All 315, Emperor v. Mt. Har Piari, AIR 1926 All 737 and Chander Giani v. The State. AIR 1958 Punj 183. In AIR 1926 All 737, the dead body had not only been removed but was buried. That case, is, therefore, distinguishable from the prevent case, where the dead body was not buried but was removed and hung up on a nearby tree, in an open place. In AIR 1958 Punj 183, the dead body was removed from the village to the Grand-Trunk Road. It was held that tile removal of the dead body to the Grand-Trunk Road was presumably with a view to suggest that the man had been done to death by someone who was a passer-by and that this act was an attempt with a view to screen the real offender. There does not appear to be any detailed discussion of the point whether the removal of the dead body to the Grant-Trunk Road amounted to causing disappearance of the evidence of murder.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sawanta And Anr. vs Emperor on 17 August, 1931

4. A legal objection is taken that there was a misjoinder of charges, and the accused should not have been tried both under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. This contention, in my opinion, has no force. When the evidence was found to be insufficient to convict the accused of the murder of Zalim and they were acquitted, the presumption is that they were not guilty of the murder at all. There was therefore no difficulty in the way of convicting them under Section 201, if the evicidence as to their being seen with the dead body of the deceased at night were to be believed. This point is covered by the authority of Emperor v. Har Piari A.I.R. 1926 All. 737.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1