Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.29 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967
(iv) Appellants Buddhi Lal, Dinesh and Rajendra failed to probablise from the record that Chhuttan was a trespasser. Even a trespasser can not be dispossessed by force. The Apex Court in Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration (supra), indicated that if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner.
Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1975
6. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that presence of alleged eye witnesses at the time of occurrence is doubtful on account of improvements, contradictions and omissions in their testimony. Statements of these witnesses are not corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the statements of Ramesh Chand Patwari (PW.15) the complainant party was not in possession of disputed field. The defence exhibits were totally ignored and the right of appellants of right of private defence of their property was not properly considered. The provisions contained in Section 149 IPC are not attracted and impugned findings are patently illegal and erroneous. Reliance is placed on Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1), Horam and Ors. v. Rex (2), Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan (3), Jai Dev and Hari Singh v. State of Punjab (4), Chand Singh and Ors. v. State (5), Dina Nath Balik Ram v. Emperor (6), Puttan alias Ellappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (7), Abdul Kadir and Ors. v. State of Assam (8), Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi (9), Ghansham Dass v. State (Delhi Administration) (10), Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Delhi Administration (11), Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (12), State of Haryana v. Sher Singh and Ors. (13), Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (14), Subramani and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (15), Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the impugned finding and urged that testimony of injured eye witnesses was rightly believed and right of private defence did not accrue to the appellants.