Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.70 seconds)

Mehraj Singh vs State Of U.P on 21 April, 1994

28. The submissions of the learned Counsel were that the place of occurrence has been changed which affects the prosecution version adversely and no reliance can be placed upon it. According to learned Counsel, as per site plan map Ex.P-4 occurrence has not taken place at the well shown at place 'A' in the site plan but was scattered from place A to E, within a distance of about 100 yards. learned Counsel has relied upon decision of Apex Court in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P. 1994 SC(Cr) 1390, wherein there was no blood stains at the place of occurrence nor were there blood trails from the occurrence to the place where dead body was found and in the circumstances, the Apex Court was of the view that the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and gensis of fight has been suppressed from the court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Nihal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 October, 1985

In Nihal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1986 RLW 128, a Division Bench of our own High Court, in the facts and circumstances involved therein, was of the view that from the investigation, occurrence took place inside house of Nihal Singh whereas testimony of eye-witnesses shows occurrence to have taken place out of house of Pat Ram and the place of occurrence seems to have been changed, rendering prosecution story doubtful.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next