Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.31 seconds)
Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022 cites

Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr on 18 January, 2011

14. It was further argued that the prosecution had miserably failed 7 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 05:54:33 ::: CRA-D-1070-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-D-990-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-AD-414-2019 -8- to attribute any motive to the accused to kill the victim. The evidence as to hatching of conspiracy was not at all inspiring. There were material improvements in the statements of PW-2 Shakuntla and PW-3 Sushila which were not taken into consideration. There was no independent evidence to the factum of recovery of driving licence, aadhar card etc. belonging to the victim. No explanation had come forward as to why the accused would keep belongings of the victim with them. With these broad arguments, it was submitted that the guilt of the accused Deepak and Joginder had not been proved beyond doubt and hence it was urged that the appeals filed by them deserved to be accepted and they deserved to be given benefit of doubt and were entitled to be acquitted. To fortify their arguments, learned counsel for the accused have relied upon the authorities cited as Shri Satish Kumar & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 2020 SC 1766; Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjy v. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 969; Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 463; Jatinder Singh @ Tota v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 179; Accharjit Singh @ Chhinda v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418; Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2012 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 2666; Chet Ram v. State, 2007 (12) R.C.R. (Criminal) 828; Muthiah v. State, 2017 (170) AIC 788; Panjali alias Savaridoss vs. The State, 2012 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1388; Kalu Ram Gurjar and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 CriLJ 2109; Kiran Pal and others v. State of U.P., 2009 (19) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9; Bhugdomal Gangaram and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 906; Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and another, AIR 8 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 05:54:33 ::: CRA-D-1070-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-D-990-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-AD-414-2019 -9- 2011 SC 760; Surender v. State, 2009 (6) ILR (Delhi) 549; Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2015 (35) R.C.R. (Criminal) 239 & Kirtan Prasad v. State of M.P., 2005 CriLJ 69.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 136 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Surender Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2018

14. It was further argued that the prosecution had miserably failed 7 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 05:54:33 ::: CRA-D-1070-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-D-990-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-AD-414-2019 -8- to attribute any motive to the accused to kill the victim. The evidence as to hatching of conspiracy was not at all inspiring. There were material improvements in the statements of PW-2 Shakuntla and PW-3 Sushila which were not taken into consideration. There was no independent evidence to the factum of recovery of driving licence, aadhar card etc. belonging to the victim. No explanation had come forward as to why the accused would keep belongings of the victim with them. With these broad arguments, it was submitted that the guilt of the accused Deepak and Joginder had not been proved beyond doubt and hence it was urged that the appeals filed by them deserved to be accepted and they deserved to be given benefit of doubt and were entitled to be acquitted. To fortify their arguments, learned counsel for the accused have relied upon the authorities cited as Shri Satish Kumar & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 2020 SC 1766; Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjy v. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 969; Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2019 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 463; Jatinder Singh @ Tota v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 179; Accharjit Singh @ Chhinda v. State of Punjab, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 418; Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2012 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 2666; Chet Ram v. State, 2007 (12) R.C.R. (Criminal) 828; Muthiah v. State, 2017 (170) AIC 788; Panjali alias Savaridoss vs. The State, 2012 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1388; Kalu Ram Gurjar and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 CriLJ 2109; Kiran Pal and others v. State of U.P., 2009 (19) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9; Bhugdomal Gangaram and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 906; Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and another, AIR 8 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 17-12-2022 05:54:33 ::: CRA-D-1070-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-D-990-DB-2018 (O&M) CRA-AD-414-2019 -9- 2011 SC 760; Surender v. State, 2009 (6) ILR (Delhi) 549; Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2015 (35) R.C.R. (Criminal) 239 & Kirtan Prasad v. State of M.P., 2005 CriLJ 69.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 64 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next