Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.09 seconds)
Simple vs State Of Haryana on 15 November, 2022 cites

S.S.Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr on 12 August, 2010

It is submitted that for the offence under the Atrocities Act the requisite ingredients are also not fulfilled. Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate has submitted that there is only one simple allegation against the petitioner Monika alleged by the deceased in the alleged suicide note which neither constitute any offence under section 306 IPC nor under the Atrocities Act. It is submitted that the prosecution is bound to prove a prima facie case against the accused on the basis of the material produced before the Trial Court, however, the prosecution miserably failed to adduce any such material constituting a prima facie case against the petitioners and thus the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same and has illegally dismissed the applications filed under section 227 Cr.P.C and hence has fallen in error in framing the charge against the petitioners for the offence under sections 306, 34 IPC and section 3 of the Atrocities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judicial precedents in cases of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another, 2010(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 66, Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh, 2007(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 87, Gayatribai Vs. State of M.P., 1996 CrLJ 894, Netal Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal 2005 AIR (SC) 1775, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2010(4) RCR (Crl.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 547 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 August, 1962

207 and Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017(1) RCR (Crl.) 118 etc. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-11-2022 01:13:56 ::: CRR-4929-2016 & another connected petition -5- the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that admittedly the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste. She was working as a Teacher in the same school along with the accused persons. It is submitted that the deceased was made a scapegoat by rest of the staff members. It is further submitted that deceased was persistently being humiliated by uttering the casteist remarks before the school staff. Counsel has submitted that the case of the prosecution is not based on presumptions and assumptions. Rather the deceased had left a suicide note, wherein she specifically mentioned about the complicity of the petitioners in her harassment and humiliation in front of the school staff which compelled her to end her life. Counsel has submitted that a bare reading of the allegations in the suicide note is sufficient enough to constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the deceased jumped before the train along with her child, however, the child miraculously survived with two injuries, whereas Manju Bala died on the spot. Counsel has submitted that the judicial precedents relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as at the the stage of framing of charge the court is to see whether the material produced before it constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners and the court is not to weigh the evidences at this stage. He has submitted that the material produced by the investigating agency before the learned Trial Court is sufficient enough to constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners and hence the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by them under section 227 Cr.P.C and framed the charges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 350 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next