Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (1.78 seconds)
Documents citing Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 May, 2007

Pushpa Devi vs Kusum And Others --Respondents on 4 March, 2014

The impugned order is based on cogent and valid reasoning. The judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner would be clearly distinguishable on facts. In the facts of that case the summoning order of a married sister of the husband of the complainant wife had been upheld but by taking notice of the specific allegations against the sister-in-law and which were to the following effect:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Smt Amishee vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 August, 2018

(50 of 53) [CRLA-932/2014] The cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2007) 5 SCC 634, was a case where the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to connect the accused with kidnapping of abducted person for ransom. The Supreme Court found that she was staying in the house where abducted person was detained, the courts below rightly held her guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B and 346/120B IPC and to that extent the Supreme Court sustained her conviction because she was all throughout present in the said house and was very well aware that the victim had been kidnapped and was kept at a secret place. However, that does not mean that accused Suman Sood was part of the kidnapping for ransom. No evidence directly or indirectly was adduced about demand of ransom by Suman Sood. Such are not the facts of the present case. Similarly, in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect accused Amishee with kidnapping of Vaibhav Agarwal. She was not accompanying other three accused in Maruti-800 car in which Vaibhav was kidnapped. It is not even the case of the prosecution that accused Amishee at any point of time demanded ransom from parents of Vaibhav or anyone else for release of Vaibhav. Accused Amishee was not shown either present or ever visited the flat where Vaibhav was detained at Ghaziabad. The prosecution has failed to make out a case for not extending her benefit of doubt inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove her guilt by requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Tyagi And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 August, 2018

(50 of 53) [CRLA-932/2014] The cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2007) 5 SCC 634, was a case where the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to connect the accused with kidnapping of abducted person for ransom. The Supreme Court found that she was staying in the house where abducted person was detained, the courts below rightly held her guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B and 346/120B IPC and to that extent the Supreme Court sustained her conviction because she was all throughout present in the said house and was very well aware that the victim had been kidnapped and was kept at a secret place. However, that does not mean that accused Suman Sood was part of the kidnapping for ransom. No evidence directly or indirectly was adduced about demand of ransom by Suman Sood. Such are not the facts of the present case. Similarly, in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect accused Amishee with kidnapping of Vaibhav Agarwal. She was not accompanying other three accused in Maruti-800 car in which Vaibhav was kidnapped. It is not even the case of the prosecution that accused Amishee at any point of time demanded ransom from parents of Vaibhav or anyone else for release of Vaibhav. Accused Amishee was not shown either present or ever visited the flat where Vaibhav was detained at Ghaziabad. The prosecution has failed to make out a case for not extending her benefit of doubt inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove her guilt by requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Birbal Choudhary @ Mukhiya Jee vs The State Of Bihar on 6 October, 2017

In A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 2774 (Suman Sood @ Kawaljeet Kaur versus State of Rajasthan) the conviction was under Section 364 A of the Penal Code. It was held in paragraph 41 as follows : “41. Regarding identification of accused, both the courts have considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding that identity of the accused was established beyond doubt. We are also satisfied that evidence of PW 9, victim Rajendra Mirdha was natural and inspired confidence. His evidence established that he was kidnapped in the morning of February 17, 1995 and he remained with the kidnappers up to the date of encounter on February 25, 1995, i.e. for eight-nine days. Obviously, therefore, his evidence was of extreme importance. It was believed by both the courts and we see nothing wrong in the approach of the courts below. It is true and admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the photographs of the accused were shown on television as also were published in newspapers. That, however, does not in any way adversely affect the 5 AIR 2007 SC 2774 Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2012 with Ors. Page 35 of 48 prosecution, if otherwise the evidence of prosecution witnesses is reliable and the Court is satisfied as to identity of the accused. Even that ground, therefore, cannot take the case of the appellants further. It is thus proved beyond doubt that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 343 read with 120B, IPC as also under Section 346 read with 120B, IPC.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 18 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Birbal Choudhary @ Mukhiya Jee vs The State Of Bihar on 6 October, 2017

In A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 2774 (Suman Sood @ Kawaljeet Kaur versus State of Rajasthan) the conviction was under Section 364 A of the Penal Code. It was held in paragraph 41 as follows : “41. Regarding identification of accused, both the courts have considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding that identity of the accused was established beyond doubt. We are also satisfied that evidence of PW 9, victim Rajendra Mirdha was natural and inspired confidence. His evidence established that he was kidnapped in the morning of February 17, 1995 and he remained with the kidnappers up to the date of encounter on February 25, 1995, i.e. for eight-nine days. Obviously, therefore, his evidence was of extreme importance. It was believed by both the courts and we see nothing wrong in the approach of the courts below. It is true and admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the photographs of the accused were shown on television as also were published in newspapers. That, however, does not in any way adversely affect the prosecution, if otherwise the evidence of prosecution witnesses is reliable and the Court is satisfied as to identity of the accused. Even that ground, therefore, cannot take the case of the appellants further. It is thus 5 AIR 2007 SC 2774 Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2012 with Ors. Page 35 of 50 proved beyond doubt that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 343 read with 120B, IPC as also under Section 346 read with 120B, IPC.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Sanjeev Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 August, 2018

(50 of 53) [CRLA-932/2014] The cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2007) 5 SCC 634, was a case where the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to connect the accused with kidnapping of abducted person for ransom. The Supreme Court found that she was staying in the house where abducted person was detained, the courts below rightly held her guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 365/120B, 343/120B and 346/120B IPC and to that extent the Supreme Court sustained her conviction because she was all throughout present in the said house and was very well aware that the victim had been kidnapped and was kept at a secret place. However, that does not mean that accused Suman Sood was part of the kidnapping for ransom. No evidence directly or indirectly was adduced about demand of ransom by Suman Sood. Such are not the facts of the present case. Similarly, in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect accused Amishee with kidnapping of Vaibhav Agarwal. She was not accompanying other three accused in Maruti-800 car in which Vaibhav was kidnapped. It is not even the case of the prosecution that accused Amishee at any point of time demanded ransom from parents of Vaibhav or anyone else for release of Vaibhav. Accused Amishee was not shown either present or ever visited the flat where Vaibhav was detained at Ghaziabad. The prosecution has failed to make out a case for not extending her benefit of doubt inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove her guilt by requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharam Pal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 August, 2012

Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 908, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, the Court is to be prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Chander Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 May, 2012

" It was argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that name of the revisionist was mentioned merely on the basis of suspicion. It was further argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that date of occurrence in the case was 22.2.2008 whereas FIR was registered on 23.2.2008. It was further argued that perusal of the statement of PW-2 does not connect the accused with the revisionist in any way. It was further argued that when the police had come on the spot as per the case of the prosecution there was hardly any occasion for registration of the case on 23.2.2008. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of Sarjojben Ashwin Kumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and others, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) (SC) 852 wherein it was held that the power conferred upon the Court is although discretionary but is not to be exercised in a routine manner. In a sense, it is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly and only if evidence has come on record which sufficiently establishes that the other person has committed an offence. A mere doubt about involvement of the other person on the basis of the evidence led in before the Court is not enough. The Court must also be satisfied that circumstances justify and warrant that other person be tried with the already arraigned accused.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next