Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)

V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015

44. In view of the above law, we have accessed the testimonies of the eye witnesses in the light of other pieces of evidence. We find that, that part of the bullock story i.e a bullock straying towards the house of accused No.1 and being brought back to the house of the victim, needs to be ignored in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in V. K. Mishra and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (supra). So also, that part of the testimony of the eye-witnesses introducing a blow on the stomach 24 of 34 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 04:41:12 ::: 908-CrApl-562-14.odt of the victim also can be ignored. By deleting these portions, the consistent testimonies of the three eye witnesses would be that the deceased had been allowing his two nephews i.e the two accused, to draw water from his well and it was in the summer season when the water level was depleting vigorously, that he was restraining them from drawing water. This denial in the month of May which is the severest month in the summer season, in this part of the State, appears to have agitated the accused and though the victim was their real uncle (father's brother), they have attacked him resulting in his death.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 163 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next