Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
Lala Ram And Ors vs State on 27 September, 2012 cites

Ram Pyare Mishra vs Prem Shanker & Ors on 22 August, 2008

18. So far as the alleged injuries on the person of the accused Bihari Lal and Lala Ram are concerned, it appears that in the arrest-cum-personal search memos (Ex.P.24 and P.26 respectively), it was stated that some minor old injuries were there. However, as rightly submitted by Mr. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the prosecution was neither called upon nor was obliged to explain such injuries on the person of the accused, more particularly when there were no questions put by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. The Apex Court in case of Ram Pyare Mishra Vs. Prem Shanker & Ors. (supra) has considered the law with regard to the non-explanation of the superficial injuries on the accused persons. In para 18 of the said judgment it has been observed as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Islam on 24 May, 2011

7. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has also held that suspicion howsoever strong can not take place of proof and the prosecution should prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Apex Court has also further put a note of caution that fancy doubts should not be given undue importance, as a miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent. A beneficial reference of the decisions in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Islam, AIR 2011 SC 2317; in case of Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpalsingh AIR 1990 SC 209; in case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, be made in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973

7. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has also held that suspicion howsoever strong can not take place of proof and the prosecution should prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Apex Court has also further put a note of caution that fancy doubts should not be given undue importance, as a miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent. A beneficial reference of the decisions in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Islam, AIR 2011 SC 2317; in case of Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpalsingh AIR 1990 SC 209; in case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, be made in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1846 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Mahmood & Anr vs State Of U.P on 15 November, 2007

14. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that as per the settled legal position, once a membership of unlawful assembly is established, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish any specific overt act to any of the accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149 and that if the injuries which caused death of the person are juxtaposed with the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes unnecessary to go into the question as to which accused caused what injury and which was fatal one. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Mahmood & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2007) 14 SCC, 16 and in case of Yunis @ Kaniya Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 1 SCC 425 be made in this regard. In the instant case, though the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against eight accused, the trial could proceed only against the three present appellants, as others have remained absconded. During the course of trial, the presence of all the appellants-accused as part of unlawful assembly was duly proved, and therefore as per the settled legal position, it was not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove as to which accused caused what injury to the deceased, which caused his death, for fastening the liability with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 35 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Yunis @ Kariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2002

14. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that as per the settled legal position, once a membership of unlawful assembly is established, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish any specific overt act to any of the accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149 and that if the injuries which caused death of the person are juxtaposed with the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes unnecessary to go into the question as to which accused caused what injury and which was fatal one. Beneficial reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Mahmood & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2007) 14 SCC, 16 and in case of Yunis @ Kaniya Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 1 SCC 425 be made in this regard. In the instant case, though the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against eight accused, the trial could proceed only against the three present appellants, as others have remained absconded. During the course of trial, the presence of all the appellants-accused as part of unlawful assembly was duly proved, and therefore as per the settled legal position, it was not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove as to which accused caused what injury to the deceased, which caused his death, for fastening the liability with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 77 - A Kumar - Full Document

Chinnathaman vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 December, 2007

16. The learned counsel Mr. Hasan for the appellants in the alternative had submitted that considering the relationship between the parties, more particularly that the sister of the accused Bihari Lal had married the son of the deceased, it was required to be inferred that there could not be any intention on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury to the deceased sufficient to cause his death. Relying upon the arrest and personal search memos (Ex. P.24 and P.26 respectively), Mr. Hasan also submitted that there were injuries found on the person of the said accused when they were arrested for which the prosecution had not offered any explanation and, therefore it was required to be inferred that some scuffle had taken place between the parties and that the accused had also received some injuries in the said scuffle. According to Mr. Hasan, the deceased Ganga Ram was physically weak as was suffering from cancer. Mr. Hasan relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chinnathaman Vs. State (2007) 14 SCC 690, and in case of Shankar Diwal Wadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518, and in case of Ramjit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 114 submitted that there being no evidence to prove premeditation or pre-plan to cause death of the deceased, and there being only one fatal injury on the head of the deceased, the case of the appellants was required to be considered under the Exception-IV to Section 300 and for imposing punishment under Part II of Section 304 of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Shankar Diwal Wadu vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 March, 2007

16. The learned counsel Mr. Hasan for the appellants in the alternative had submitted that considering the relationship between the parties, more particularly that the sister of the accused Bihari Lal had married the son of the deceased, it was required to be inferred that there could not be any intention on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury to the deceased sufficient to cause his death. Relying upon the arrest and personal search memos (Ex. P.24 and P.26 respectively), Mr. Hasan also submitted that there were injuries found on the person of the said accused when they were arrested for which the prosecution had not offered any explanation and, therefore it was required to be inferred that some scuffle had taken place between the parties and that the accused had also received some injuries in the said scuffle. According to Mr. Hasan, the deceased Ganga Ram was physically weak as was suffering from cancer. Mr. Hasan relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chinnathaman Vs. State (2007) 14 SCC 690, and in case of Shankar Diwal Wadu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518, and in case of Ramjit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 114 submitted that there being no evidence to prove premeditation or pre-plan to cause death of the deceased, and there being only one fatal injury on the head of the deceased, the case of the appellants was required to be considered under the Exception-IV to Section 300 and for imposing punishment under Part II of Section 304 of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - M Katju - Full Document

Ramlagan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 17 August, 1972

Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. As observed by this Court in Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 2593) prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 65 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar on 19 September, 1986

In Hare krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1988 SC 863), it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 437 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next