Chhattisgarh Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chandra Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
(Criminal appeal under Section 374 2 of the Cr PC)SHARMA, J: -1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-12-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No.195/2002, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife Kaushalya Bai and concealing the evidence of criminal case, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and RI for three years, respectively.2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, and thereby committed illegality.3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 8- 4-2002 at about 9 a.m. appellant Chandra Kumar was present in house along with his wife Kaushalya Bai (since deceased), the appellant caused fatal inj...
Nag Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
(CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973)The following judgment of the Court was delivered by T.P. SHARMA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.1.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.13/2006, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting co-accused Murari and Suresh and after holding appellant Rohit guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120- B, 302 and 148 of the I.P.C. and appellants Nag Singh, Manoj Chhagan, Nirmal and Punitram guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302/34 and 148 of the I.P.C. sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- and R.I for one year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for fifteen days on each default. The Trial Court has also convicted appellants...
Wahid Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31th of August, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No.379/91 by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/Ss.376 and 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years and imprisonment for life, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased - Kuntibai was wife of Ravindra Kumar (PW-12). They were residing in a house in Mohallah Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. The appellant was their neighbour. On 15-2-1991 at about 5.15 a.m. Ravindra Kumar (PW-12) lodged a written report (Ex. P/12) in police station Sarkanda that on 14-2-1991 at about 10.30 p.m. when the deceased was all alone, the appellant entered into their house and committed forcible sexual intercourse against the deceased. This was witnessed by him. They hade made complaint of the above act of the appellant to the sister-in-law (bhabhi) ...
Sr Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kalj ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
Oral Order 1. Heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal has been directed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 25-2-2009 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 75/2006 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant holding the appellant/Insurance Company liable for its payment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per claimant, claimant Kaljeet Singh was driver of the bus bearing registration No. CG 10 ZA 0235. On 9-7-2002, the claimant was driving the bus in normal speed and was going from Bilaspur to Korba but due to failure of break, it dashed a tree. In the accident, driver of the bus Kaljeet Singh received injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly `the Act') claiming Rs. 11,90,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, the mater...
Raj Kumar Patel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Now C G and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
ORDER (ORAL):1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 Babu Lal Sahu, on the post of Teacher in Junior Primary School Parsadeepa, District Raigarh, by order dated 11.3.1993 on the ground that requirement to give preference to a village, which is closer to the School, as prescribed in Clause-2 of the circular dated 13.9.1990 (Annexure-A) is not followed.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Babu Lal Sahu had died during pendency of this case and his wife namely Geeta Bai Sahu has been impleaded, as party respondent.3. The question asto whether the petitioner was appointed, in accordance with law, cannot be considered at this stage, as Babu Lal had already died. Secondly, the petitioner has not claimed his appointment, as a consequence of quashing of the appointment order dated 11.3.1993, but the relief sought for, is to consider the candidates belonging to Parsadeepa Para village in preference to other candidates, which cannot be ...
Surendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
ORDER (ORAL):(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to take the petitioners in service or in alternative, direct the respondents to consider and decide their representations filed on 08.12.2010 (Annexure P/4).2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1992. In the year 2002, the petitioners were removed from service without any reason. Vide the memo dated 03.05.2006, issued by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 5, it was directed to remove the daily wagers only after proper scrutiny. Despite that, the petitioners have not been taken back into service, though they have filed number of representation to the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6500/2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue their representations, on 15.11.2010. After withdrawal of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›