Madhya Pradesh Court January 1956 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.
Choteylal Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1291
Mathur, J.C.1. This judgment governs Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1956 and Cr. Jail Appeal No. 3 of 1956 both by Choteylal, against his conviction of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C., for committing murder of his only son Purshottam, aged six years. The first appeal was presented through a counsel, while the other was received from the jail recently.2. The fact that Purshottam died at the hands of the appellant is not challenged. But the only point urged before me is that at the time the offence was committed, the appellant was, by reasons of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.The appellant thus seeks protection under the general exception contained in Section 84, I.P.C. The appellant would, therefore, be deemed to have been rightly convicted, unless he was entitled to the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C. and consequently deserved acquittal, even though the death of his son was caused by him,3. In ...
Nanbu Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1078
Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Nanbu was convicted by Sessions Judge, Ratlam (camp Alirajpur) for an offence under Section 302, I, p. Code and sentenced him to transportation for life.2. This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction.3. The relationship between various persons who are concerned in this case is as described below.4. Nukati was married1 to Radu; Radu died. Later she was kept by Damdia as his wife. Deceased Joharu was her son from Radu. He accompanied her at Damdia's house. Damdia had a first wife named Nahali. Through Nahali, Damdia had two sons, accused Nanbu and P. W. Nankya.5. The case of the prosecution is that Joharu had illicit connection with the wife of accused Nanbu. The latter nursed a grievance against Joharu for this. A day prior to the incident Nanbu had beaten his wife. He then left but returned next morning. While he was thus returning he found Joharu coming back home with some 'Ma-huwa fruits. The accused stopped him and abused him and ran after h...
Tulsi Ram Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1290
Mathur, J.C.1. This is a jail appeal by Tulsiram against his conviction of offences under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. for kidnapping and also for committing rape on Kumari Sumitra Devi, aged 10 years.2. From the judgment under appeal it does not appear that the main eye-witnesses, namely, the prosecutrix, Kumari Sumitra Devi, and Chotey Khan, who were the first to see her after the commission of the crime did not appear before the Sessions Judge to give their statement on oath.But the learned Government Advocate took pains in studying all the papers existing on the and it then came to light that though Kumari Sumitra Devi and Chotey Khan had been referred to as PWs. 15 and 13 respectively, they were examined only in the committing Court and not before the Sessions Judge, Their statements were admitted and brought on the record under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, on the ground that they were not available.When such a step was taken, the depositions should have been transferred from t...
Durga Prasad Vs. Shivnarain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ198
Dixit, J.1. The facts of this appeal are that the appellant Durga Prasad made an application in the Court of Small Causes Lashkar for the institution by that Court of a complaint against Shivnarayan in respect of offences under Sections 209 and 193 I. P. C. It was said that Shivnarain had committed the said offences in a civil suit decided by the Court of Small Causes. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes refused to make any complaint against Shivnarain. Durga Prasad has now filed this appeal under Section 476-B Cr. P. C.2. Mr. Ramroop Tiwari learned Counsel for the respondent has taken the preliminary objection that this appeal is incompetent inasmuch as the Court of Small Causes is not a Court Subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 476-B and Section 195 Cr. P. C. This objection must, in my opinion, prevail. Under Section 476-B an appeal from a decision of any civil revenue or criminal court refusing to make a complaint under Section 476 or 476-A lies to the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›