//
archives

benefit of doubt

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Delay in filing FIR=There is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. Further-more, the lower Court noticed that the evidence of the doctor clearly goes to show that on 02.09.2001 PW.1 was examined at 12-00 Noon and the age of the injuries is about 24 to 36 hours prior to the examination, consequently the lower Court has found that the injuries must have been caused, if any, prior to 12.00 Noon on 01.09.2001, and which destroy the prosecution case that the incident happened on 01.09.2001 at 9.30 P.M. Evidently, there are said to be some civil disputes and ill-feelings between both the parties. The evidence of PW.1 is not supported by any independent evidence and the medical evidence is also not corroborative and therefore, the lower Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and there are no compelling reasons to come to a different conclusion.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEN.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 OF 2012     JUDGMENT:-   The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.324 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur.   2.       The parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Court.     … Continue reading

This Court declares that Section 27(3) of Arms Act, 1959 is ultra vires the Constitution and is declared void.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.117 OF 2006 State of Punjab …..Appellant(s) – Versus – Dalbir Singh ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the State has been preferred from the judgment of the Division Bench of … Continue reading

kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.= To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is: (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom…..”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1321 of 2011) Akram Khan …. Appellant(s) Versus State of West Bengal …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,902,755 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com