Rajasthan Court January 2006 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.
Dayal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (the)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj954; 2006(2)WLC235
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar dated 7.12.2001 whereby appellants Hari Ram and Dayal Ram were convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- each; and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.2. The unfortunate incident occurred on 25.1.2000 at about 6.15 p.m. where as per FIR lodged with Police Station Raghunathgarh on 26.1.2000 by Bodu Ram to the effect that his younger brother Pyare Lal who came in bus towards Sikar side, his dead body was found in an agricultural field in Jodla Johda and when he went to the said agricultural field, he found the dead body of his younger brother Pyare Lal and there were several injuries on the body and around the neck was a tie of cloth and some unknown person has killed his brother and had thrown the dead body there. The police inves...
Mahesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1657; RLW2006(2)Raj1297; 2006(2)WLC330
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mahesh and Lakhan, the appellants herein, along with co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar, Mangal Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahendra, were placed on trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur. Learned Judge vide judgment dated February 6, 2003 acquitted Raju, Mangal Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahendra but convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-- Under Section 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500A, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.Under Section 364 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story runs as under:-- On October 29, 1998, informant Chhitaria (Pw.4) submitted a written report (Ex.P-16) at Police Station Mania stating therein that in the morning when he went to his field he found a dead body of Chandan lying on th...
Prem Kanwar and ors. Vs. Aadam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC917; 2006WLC(Raj)UC485
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This miscellaneous appeal on behalf of claimant-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment/award dated 18.12.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Ajmer, in motor accident claims case No. 29 of 1990, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants in view of finding of Issue No. 1, whereby, it was held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died due to accident with the truck No. R.P.Z. 3429.3. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant contended that Ext. 4 First Information Report was lodged in respect of this accident, wherein the vehicle number was given. He further contended that Ext. 3 charge-sheet was also placed on record before the Tribunal, wherein also the above truck number was given. He also contended that a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was given to the vehicle owner, wh...
Anurag and Co. and anr. Vs. Addl. Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj119; 2006(2)WLC160
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-3) passed in civil suit No. 96/01 pending before the Additional District Judge, Sikar whereby the Additional District Judge refused to consolidate the four civil suits for recovery of money on the ground that the plaintiffs are different, cause of actions and amount are different and further merely because the defendant is common a such cases cannot be consolidated. It was also observed that in Section 10 CPC there is no provision of consolidation nor in any other provision of CPC such cases can be consolidated.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed four separate civil suit against petitioners for recovery of different amount which become due on different dates against petitioner-defendants, and all the civil suits are pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sikar. The details of the suits number and amoun...
Gordhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj573; 2006(2)WLC42
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The accused appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No, 18/99 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in each offence under Section 8/18 and Section 19 to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. Both the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. In case accused fails to make the payment of the amount of fine then he will further undergo in each offence two years RI meaning thereby additional RI for 4 years.2. The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was filed by Central Narcotics Bureau against accused appellant in Court of Special Judge, NDPS case, Jhalawar under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein it was alleged that the accused was holding a licence of cultivation of opium for the year 1998-99. During the period from 6.3.1999 to 23.3. 1999 the daywise weighed of opium produce was mentioned in the daily weigh register duly signed by a...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Roopkanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC127; 2007ACJ1394; RLW2006(2)Raj1034
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.1990 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 86/1985 dismissing the appeal of the appellant Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act')2. In view of the limited controversy involved in this appeal it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in details. Suffice it to mention that one Bhagwan Singh was employed as Khalasi on Truck No. RSN 5900 owned by Hari Singh. On 23.3.1981, driver of the truck Tulcha Ram, took it to workshop for repairs. While it was being moved inside, the stone pattis of the truck fell over him as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment and he remained hospitalised for about four months. On 8.7.1981 he filed claim petition under Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 before the Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, se...
Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1080; 2006(2)WLC336
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. These appeals owe, its origin in the judgment dated September 15, 1999 of the learned Sessions Judge Baran rendered in Sessions Case No. 132/1998, whereby the appellants, three in number, were convicted sentenced as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, in default to further suffer five years rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 307/34 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story runs as under:Champa Lal, ASI, Police Station Baran (Pw. 16) on receiving telephonic message at 10.15 PM on September 14, 1998 from the Hospital that Madhusudan, Hemant (now deceased) and Hitesh (Pw. 2) were admitted in injured condition, rushed to the Hospital where he found Madhusudan and Hemant dead and Hitesh admitted at Bed No. 1 in the Medical Ward. Champa La...
Raju and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1077
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Raju, Heera and Mool Chand, the appellants herein along with two other co-accused, were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1. Bundi in Sessions Case No. 69/2001. Learned Judge vide Judgment August 13, 2001, while acquitting co-accused Mahaveer and Tulsiram, convicted and sentenced each of the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 1PC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.2. It is the prosecution case that on October 21, 1998 after receiving wireless message (Ex. P-30) from Control Room Rang Lai, ASI went to MBS Hospital Kota where informant Modu Lal (Pw. 19) handed over a written report (Ex. P-23) at 1.30 PM to the effect that on receiving information from Gita Bai Brahmin about the murder of his brother Hemlal, when he reached to the spot he found his brother lying unconscious. Ram Kishan, who was standing there, told him that Hira Lal, Ra...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (the) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1359; 2006(2)WLC142
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.12.1913. a lease was executed for 30 years between the predecessor of the petitioner company and the erstwhile ruler of Bundi State for mining lime stone in the area measuring 101 sq. miles. Part II of the lease confers rights and privileges on the predecessor of the petitioner company. Clause 3 of Part II of the lease deed is reproduced hereunder:3. Liberty and power to appropriate and use for any purpose connected with the said mines and quarries the water upon or within any of the said lands and to collect and impound the came in ponds reservoirs or otherwise for the purpose of working the said mines and quarries but so that in the exercise of this privilege the Lessees shall not deprive only lands villages houses or watering places for cattle of a reasonable quantity of water as before accustomed and do not in any way foul impregnate or otherwise deteriorate any springs or streams of water so as to render them useless or unpr...
Jaidev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: I(2006)DMC618; 2006WLC(Raj)UC227
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2005, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri has framed the charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306, 406, and 498-A, I.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2004, the complainant, Pratap Singh, lodged a report at Police Station Buhana wherein he claimed that his daughter, Savita, was married to the petitioner's son, Jitendra. Just after her marriage, the husband, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law and the brother-in-law, started torturing his daughter for dowry. He further claimed that during the marriage, he had spent a huge amount on his daughter's marriage and had given rupees one lakh to the accused persons by way of dowry. He further alleged that Jitendra was a habitual drinker who would abuse and assault his daughter after heavy drinking. Because of the ill treatment, his nephew Mohan had brought his daughter back to the paternal house. But after inter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »