Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2847
..... kaur (the widow of the deceased) as per the prosecution case. being the close relatives of the deceased, their evidence has to be carefully scrutinized before the same can be acted upon. while considering the evidence of both these witnesses, it has to be seen: whether they were actually present at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-20-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3910; 1995(2)WLC184
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-8-1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Appellant Sampat Lal, along with his brothers Mitha Lal and Shanker Lal, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Ram Lal -- the brother-in-law of accused Sampat Lal -- while he was sleeping in the house of Narain Lal in village Panotiya. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Lal was called by Shanker Lal from his village Panotiya to village Aaspur on 25-2-1986 and in the night intervening between 25th and 26th February, 1986, he was sleeping on a cot in the house of Narain Lal. Accused Sampat Lal was, also, sleeping on the adjoining...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-1995
Reported in : 1996(1)ALT(Cri)3; 1995CriLJ1944
..... then there was no necessity for accused kesar singh to catch-hold the beard of raghunath because raghunath had already been over-powered by accused tej singh. this overt-act his been falsely assigned to accused kesar singh. accused kesar singh himself had sixteen injuries on his person and these injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. the ..... evidence of all the aforesaid eye-witnesses it is established that accused tej singh cut the throat of deceased raghunath by the razor and raghunath died. the only overt-act assigned to accused kesar singh is that he caught-hold the beard of raghunath, but this part of the story is, also, not supported by pw 21 dhanna ..... he did not see kesar singh and tej singh abusing raghunath. according to this witness, the injury to raghunath was inflicted only by accused tej singh and no overt act has been assigned by this witness to accused kesar singh except that had caught the beard of raghunath.9. pw 10 sangram singh - the another eye witness of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-15-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1078; 1996WLC(Raj)UC438; 1995(2)WLN609
..... a quarrel and attempt to snatch the gun from the hands of the accused. according to him, the possibility of the two brothers being killed accidently or the accused himself acting in self defence, cannot be ruled out. the learned counsel submitted that there were five injuries on the body of deceased baboo lal apart from gun shot wounds which were .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1333
..... accused-appellants has been disbelieved as having no substance and, therefore, the other part of their statement that they caused these injuries voluntarily to gulabchand can be accpeted and acted upon for recording a conviction against. them.35. according to the doctor, injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of ..... 2) all india criminal lr 431, a division bench of the punjab and haryana high court has held that even a retracted confession made by the accused can be acted upon and utilised against him.34. it is true that the statement of the accused has to be accepted and rejected as a whole but if any exculpatory part ..... still they remain contented by only raising hue and cry without intervening in the occurrence or putting up any resistence. even if it is admitted that different persons re-act differently to the events and out of fear, pw. 1 sunderram and lalchand did not intervene and they only raised cries to attract the attention of other persons .....
Tag this Judgment!