Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.39 seconds)Section 3 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Dewangan 11 Cra/1241/2000 The ... on 16 January, 2018
9. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Ram Sakal Yadav after having recorded the statement of various witnesses and having collected the material evidence, completed the investigation. He thereafter submitted the charge sheet dated 5.7.2004 in Case Crime No. 240 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC, whereby both the accused-appellants were charge sheeted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the CJM, Azamgarh took cognizance vide order dated 20.7.2004. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 11.6.2004 in Case Crime No. 246 of 2004 under sections 3/25 Arms Act. Cognizance on the basis of the aforesaid was taken by the A.C.J.M., Azamgarh vide order dated 22.7.2004. Ultimately, the charge-sheet dated 23.6.2004 was submitted in Case Crime no. 297 of 2004 and cognizance was taken by the A.C.J.M, Azamgarh, vide order dated 22.07.2004. By separate orders dated 13.12.2004, the A.C.J.M., Azamgarh committed the cases to the court of sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 401 of 2004 (State Vs. Ramesh chand Rai and Another) under Section 302 IPC, PS. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh, S.T. No. 402 of 2004 (State Vs. Ramesh Chand Rai) under sections 3/25 Arms Act, arising out Case Crime No. 246 of 2004 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Tahbarpur District Azamgarh and S.T. No. 403 of 2004 (State Vs. Ganga Yadav) under sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2004 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act came to be registered in the court of sessions.
State Of Mp vs Ganga Yadav on 14 July, 2014
9. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Ram Sakal Yadav after having recorded the statement of various witnesses and having collected the material evidence, completed the investigation. He thereafter submitted the charge sheet dated 5.7.2004 in Case Crime No. 240 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC, whereby both the accused-appellants were charge sheeted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the CJM, Azamgarh took cognizance vide order dated 20.7.2004. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 11.6.2004 in Case Crime No. 246 of 2004 under sections 3/25 Arms Act. Cognizance on the basis of the aforesaid was taken by the A.C.J.M., Azamgarh vide order dated 22.7.2004. Ultimately, the charge-sheet dated 23.6.2004 was submitted in Case Crime no. 297 of 2004 and cognizance was taken by the A.C.J.M, Azamgarh, vide order dated 22.07.2004. By separate orders dated 13.12.2004, the A.C.J.M., Azamgarh committed the cases to the court of sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 401 of 2004 (State Vs. Ramesh chand Rai and Another) under Section 302 IPC, PS. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh, S.T. No. 402 of 2004 (State Vs. Ramesh Chand Rai) under sections 3/25 Arms Act, arising out Case Crime No. 246 of 2004 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Tahbarpur District Azamgarh and S.T. No. 403 of 2004 (State Vs. Ganga Yadav) under sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2004 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act came to be registered in the court of sessions.
Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 October, 2004
In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. AIR 2004 SC 5039, while dealing with the case this Court held:
Hiralal Pandey & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 April, 2012
32. With regard to P.W.-2, Dinesh Yadav, the learned Senior Counsel submits that P.W.-2, Dinesh Yadav apart from not being a reliable or a credible witness is also a chance witness. The term chance witness has been examined by the Apex Court and it has been held that this concept of chance witness is alien to our country. How and why, P.W.-2, Dinesh Yadav came to be present at the time and place of occurrence has categorically been stated in his testimony. The testimony of this witness also stands corroborated with the testimony of P.W.-1. Both these prosecution witnesses have been consistent in narrating the story which the prosecution set out to prove. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that four persons riding on two different bicycles,i.e., P.W.-1 Deep Chand Yadav, P.W.-2, Dinesh Yadav, Leela Dhar Yadav and Dinesh Yadav were coming from Manjhari Bazar to their home when the occurrence took place. Therefore, the testimony of PW.-1 as well a P.W.-2 categorically explains the reason for their presence at the time and place of occurrence and therefore, it cannot be said that P.W.-2, Dinesh Yadav is a chance witness. We may at this stage refer to the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Hiralal Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. , (2012) 5 SCC 216, wherein the Apex Court repelled the argument that the evidence of second eye witness could not have been discarded on the ground that he was a chance witness. Following was observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 9 which is reproduced herein under:-
Thangaiya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 December, 2004
9. Mr. R.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, submitted that the presence of PW-1 at the spot of occurrence is supported by three circumstances: (a) that his motorcycle was found lying at the spot; (b) that his pant was torn and (c) DW-1 admitted to have seen the motorcycle lying on the western side of the road. He submitted that PW-1 therefore was present at the place of occurrence and was an eyewitness to the firing. He submitted that PW-2 could not be treated as a chance witness as the incident took place on the road and only passers-by on the road would be witnesses to any such incident which took place on the road and their evidence could not be brushed aside on the ground that they are chance witnesses. He cited Thangaiya Vs. State of T.N [(2005) 9 SCC 650] in which this Court has held that if a murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be the witnesses and their evidence could not be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they were mere chance witnesses.