Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.50 seconds)
Yogeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 2025 cites

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Dewangan 11 Cra/1241/2000 The ... on 16 January, 2018

11. Mr. Pratik Mishra appearing in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 814 of 2025 on behalf of the appellants Bhushan Yadav and others has also, besides arguing other grounds, pointed out that out of the two versions of the alleged incident, the version put forth by the present appellants was not only found correct by the Investigating Agency but has also resulted in conviction of the accused persons, while the case of the complainant was found false during the investigation, hence had proceeded upon protest petition being treated as complaint. He has referred to paragraph no. 8 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishri Lal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 26, in order to submit that the rational behind court cases being tried together by the same court is to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident but in the present case the trial court trying both the cases together has committed illegality by convicting these appellants under Section 304/149 of the IPC, when the accused persons of the case filed by the appellants also got convicted under Section 302/149 of the IPC. He has also submitted that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 731 of 2025(8) dt.08-10-2025 12/17 the witnesses have not talked about the presence of each other during the trial and P.W. 6 rather admits presence of Ramakant Akela, who was armed with pistol along with others at the place of occurrence and in cross examination, he has rather stated that while the pistol was in the hand of Ramakant Akela, he did not see the incident of firing but saw the appellant Yogeshwar Yadav and his wife weeping. The counsel has also made a reference to paragraph no. 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the evidence of the complainant P.W. 8 to show that he is not definite of the contents of the complaint petition and upon specific question with regard to the correctness of the statements in the complaint, the witness had kept silent. It has been further submitted that while the appellant no. 3, is a lady and also mother of the deceased, the other appellants 5 and 6 are also old aged persons.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1663 - Full Document

Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2022

The law is well settled with regard to the evidentiary value of the chance witnesses to the effect that their evidence needs to be scrutinized with utmost care, such witness is required to adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence and doubtful presence should be discarded, as has been held in the case of Manoj Vs. State of MP, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353. We further find that PW-2 has deposed for the first time in court, PW-3 is an interested witness as he is the full brother of the complainant as also a chance witness, PW-6 is a hearsay witness and PW-8 is the complainant himself who admittedly is not an eye witness to the occurrence, even as per his own case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 140 - Cited by 119 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 Next