Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sampat Balvant Magar And Ors. on 31 October, 1996 cites

The State Of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh And Another on 10 November, 1952

8. Ms. Pawar, Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that the impugned judgment of acquittal is manifestly perverse and warrants to be reversed. There is no quarrel with the proposition that if the judgment of acquittal passed by a subordinate Court is perverse, the Appellate Court would have powers to reverse it. In our view, no authority is really required in support of this proposition. However, it would be useful to refer to the observations contained in para 7 of the judgment of the Apex Court, , State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, which are to the following effect :---
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

Baladin And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 October, 1955

In such a situation, the learned Magistrate felt that they did not share the common object and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the oft-quoted case of Baladin v. State of U.P., , would have application. The finding of the learned Magistrate that the said respondents were merely present and did not assault the victim, is contrary to the weight of evidence on record. Both the eye-witnesses namely the victim Prabhakar Magar, P.W. 2 and Prahlad Magar, P.W. 4, have categorically stated that all the accused chased the victim (Prabhakar Magar) and assaulted him with sticks, iron bars, and handles of axe. Evidence of both the eye-witnesses unmistakably shows that assault on the victim was committed by the said respondents in furtherance of the common object of unlawful assembly which was to inflict injuries on the victim Prabhakar Magar. Hence they would be liable under section 324/149 I.P.C. In addition, the learned Magistrate has also observed that since there was an enmical strain between the informant and these respondents, they may have been falsely implicated. The learned Magistrate forgot that the said circumstance was the motive in the instant case. He also forgot that the medical evidence probablised the assault by the 13 respondents on the victim. Some of the injuries sustained by him were multiple.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 126 - Full Document
1