Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj @ Raju vs State on 23 May, 2007
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The appellant felt that he has been wrongly convicted and so he has preferred this appeal.
2. The relevant facts leading
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 3909 (1.51 seconds)Basant Rai vs State on 2 July, 2012
appellant/accused.
21. Moreover, learned Trial Judge has wrongly convicted the
appellant without going through the evidence in favour of appellant
and has not even ... mixing
charas from each of the packets were prepared. Therefore, this was
wrong process of taking samples. The police should have been taken
the samples
Jeet Lal vs The State on 3 August, 2010
order on sentence dated 16th April, 2010 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 279 / 304A IPC in case ... negligence of the truck driver and the truck
driver was wrongly convicted.
5. Every motor vehicle that comes out of the factory has some essential
Sarvjeet Mahto vs State Thr. Cbi on 11 July, 2013
certificate being a forged certificate and
therefore, the petitioner has been wrongly convicted and sentenced for the
Crl. Rev. P. No. 711/2012 Page
Kesho Ram vs The State And Anr. on 11 December, 1979
unfit for analysis.
10. The trial court after recording the evidence, convicted the petitioner under Section 7 / 16 of the Act. This conviction was upheld ... revision the case of the petitioner has been that he was wrongly convicted as his right under Section
Shri Izzazul S/O Jiya-Ull vs State [Along With Crl. A-329, 430 And ... on 20 December, 2006
argued by the counsel that appellant, Saleem has been wrongly convicted under Section 397 of I.P.C. as role assigned to him was only
Chhotu Singh Naruka vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2007
known source of income. It was urged that the petitioner was wrongly convicted of the said charge in the second round of proceedings undertaken
Purshottam Dass Gupta (Shri) vs Union Of India on 28 May, 1999
appellant acquitted the accused for the offence
under S. 366 IPC but convicted him under S. 363 IPC and released him on one year ... evidence on the record. The trial Court seems to have wrongly convicted the appellant."
The appellant made representation against the aforesaid remarks
Kapoor Singh Rana vs State Of Delhi on 17 November, 2005
cogent evidence against the appellant and the appellant has been wrongly convicted. In the first place, it is submitted that the statement on the basis
Jugesh Kumar vs State on 3 May, 2007
accused in our view was innocent and appears to have been wrongly charged and does not appear to have been involved in the incident ... deceased Babita. Thus, in the instant case, the accused was wrongly convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of the Dying Declaration.
18. Before