Rajasthan Court September 1995 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.
State of Rajasthan and Etc. Vs. Vijay Singh and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1202; 1995(2)WLN623
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Vijay Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Kalyan Singh, Kishan Singh, Khem Singh, Vaje Ram, Anandi Lal and Jalam Singh were prosecuted on charges under Sections 302,302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for having caused death of Ranjeet Singh, Devi Lal, Kanhaiya Lal. Suresh Chandra, Shanti Lal, Hazari Lal, Arjun Lal, Gulab, Prakash, Chuni Das and Sunder Lal by intentionally dashing a dumper driven by Vijay Singh son of Bhanwar Singh with the Jeep in which the eleven deceased persons were travelling. The motive for the crime was alleged to be enmity between the parties arising but of a property dispute and a Criminal Case going on between the parties.2. Accused Vijay Singh is the son of accused Bhanwar Singh and accused persons Kalyan Singh, Kishan Singh and Khem Singh are the brothers of Bhanwar Singh. 'The trial Court acquitted all the accused persons pf charge under Section 120B I.P.C. Accused Vijay Singh son of Bhanwar Singh was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and accus...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ishwar Dass and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC349; 1995(2)WLN595
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 19.2.94 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in Original Civil Suit No. 251 of 1993 and Civil Misc. petition No. 32 of 1993 Ishwar Dass etc. v. Bhikh Singh etc. rejecting an application moved on behalf of the revisionist Under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC.2. Aggrieved against the order dated 19.2.94 refusing an amendment application moved by the defendant-revisionist Under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, the revisionist has come in revision before this Court.3. Learned Counsel Mr. Prakash Tatia appearing on behalf of the defendant-revisionist urged before me that an admission made by a party in its written statement can be withdrawn or may be explained away. Thus, according to him the learned trial court has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing the amendment application Under Order VI Rule 17, CPC. According to Mr. Tatia, it cannot be said that by amendment, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›