Uttaranchal Court March 2013 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 Uttarakhand Vs. Vijay Sahu and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
Alok Singh, J. 1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that since respondent no.3 Rajesh Rawat had already died, so appeal against him has already abated vide order dated 25.02.2008. 2. This is a State appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital whereby he was pleased to acquit the respondents herein. 3. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that on 11.03.1999 PW1 Ramesh Singh Chilwal was admitted for treatment in the Male Ward of Sobhan Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani under the police custody. Head Constable 62 AP Latafat Ali and Constable 280 AP Manoj Kumar were on security duty of PW1 Ramesh Singh Chilwal, who was lying on bed no.129 and his friend PW2 Jagdish Sharma was also sitting near his bed. Constable Manoj Kumar (PW4) was sitting on a stool placed between bed no. 123 and 129 while Head Constable Latafat Ali was sitting on bed no.124. At about 11 p.m, respondents no. 1 to 6 and 8 alongwith one ...
Basant and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand Through District Magistrate ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Prafulla C. Pant, J. For the Applicants: Sandeep Kothari, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.S. Pal, A.G.A. 1. Heard. 2) ApplicantsBasant, Anil Joshi, and Sanni Joshi who are in jail in connection with Crime No. 27 of 2013, relating to offence punishable under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, have sought their release on bail. 3) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that gang chart annexed with the first information report discloses that only one case of murder shown to have been registered in which present applicants were not named. It is further pointed out that no charge sheet was filed in said case against accused (present applicants) within a period of ninety days. Consequently, they were directed to be released on bail in said case. 4) Learned counsel for the applicants argued that only because said case of murder pertains to the wife of an Advocate, to keep the ...
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Barin Ghosh, C. J. Oral: 1. A First Information Report was lodged naming the respondents as accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, victim was medically examined. The doctor, who medically examined the victim, ultimately, opined that the victim was about 19 years old and that no definite opinion about rape can be given. The doctor also recorded the fact that the vaginal smear report is not available. No effort was made to obtain the vaginal smear report and to produce the same before the court. Ramesh, Rajesh and Shiv Charan were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Shiv Charan was charged additionally for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment under appeal, each of the accused people has been exonerated. Hence, the present Government Appeal. 2. In course of tendering evidence, victim Ms. Arti deposed as PW1. Initially, sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›