Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES Vs. STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE & ORS.
SIRAJUL & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR
24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally Full Judgment
Kuldeep Vs State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Raigarh (CG).
Saurabh Verma Alias Shailendra Verma Vs The State Of U.P.
STATE OF M.P Vs. MANISH & ORS
BASISTH NARYAN YADAV Vs. KAILASH RAI AND ORS
We find that although the case of the prosecution suffers from many infirmities and there has been unexplained reluctance in bringing the relevant witnesses on record, apart from parents of the deceased, the doctor and the Investigating Officer, even Triloki Sharma and the Chowkidar who saw the accused persons disposing of the body of the deceased, have also not been examined. Yet we may not Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ANOOP SINGH
With respect to this finding of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical opinion should have been sought. We find that the Trial Court has also dealt with this aspect of the ossification test. The Trial Court noted that the respondent had cited Full Judgment
Vishal And 3 Others Vs State Of U.P. & Another
S.R.SUKUMAR Vs. S.SUNAAD RAGHURAM
7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the points falling for determination are: (i) in the facts of the case, when did the Magistrate take cognizance of the complaint for the first time i.e. on 18.05.2007 or on 21.06.2007, when the Magistrate satisfied of a prima Full Judgment
DAYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
STATE OF U.P. Vs. SATVEER & ORS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SATEESH & OR.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. ASHOK & ORS.
In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report it is quite clear that the respondents were present when Tikaram was burning alive. The sequence of narration certainly shows that they were waiting in ambush. It may be that only two of them set Tikaram afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding Tikaram that he would not be allowed to escape. Further, throwing of burning Full Judgment
KAMLA KANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.
It is settled principle that a conviction can well be founded on the testimony of a single witness if the court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars[1]. We are conscious that we are considering an appeal against acquittal and that going by the law laid down by this Court, the Full Judgment