Showing : 2131-2140 of 14008 Results

DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 174A-- Offence u/s 174-A IPC - Arises out of proceedings conducted during main case - Can be tried and disposed of by same Court - Lodging of separate FIR for commission of offence u/s 174 IPC is not always required...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, 320, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307, 336, 34-- Quashing of FIR - Compromise - Offence u/ss 307, 336, 34 IPC - Occurrence took place over a petty issue and parties are residents of same village - Though complainant suffered a grievous injury on his head on account of gandasi blow, yet settlement arrived at during the course of investigation -..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 83, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, 174A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)-- Proclamation - Offence u/ss 120-B, 174-A IPC and Ss.13(1)(d), 13(2) of P.C. Act - Petitioners failed to appear before trial Court despite issuance of no, bailable warrants - No cogent document emerged on record to infer that petitioners were prevented by compelling reasons not to appear personally..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 174A-- Non-appearance in response to proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner did not put appearance deliberately and were declared absconders - Supplementary charge sheet for commission of offence u/s 174-A IPC filed by investigating agency - Offence u/s 174-A IPC, though independent in nature is an..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 449, 201, 34-- Murder - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - No evidence on record to prove that A1 committed the crime - Trial Court convicted A1 on the basis of surmise, as he was involved in 5 previous cases of similar nature and it can be inferred that accused had modus operandi to commit the offences -..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, 320, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 471-- Quashing of FIR - Compounding of offence - Offence u/ss 420, 471 IPC - Even though offence in question is no, compoundable, but High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can quash such offence on the basis of settlement arrived at between parties - FIR quashed...........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 392, 449, 201, 34-- Murder - Robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Accused committed robbery in temple, when deceased/watchman on duty in temple resisted - Deceased died out of homicidal violence by accused - Chance finger prints lifted from place of occurrence tallied with finger prints of A2 and A3, but same not..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 149, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3, 4, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25-- Double murder case - Eye witnesses vividly deposed about genesis of occurrence, participation and involvement of accused persons in the crime - Non-examination of witnesses, who was on the way to hospital or the hospital itself when deceased narrated the incident - Not fatal to prosecution case...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 149, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3, 4, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25-- Double murder case - U, lawful assembly - Accused hurled bombs and caused death of two persons - Other accused facilitating the act of hurling bombs as well as captivating the relatives of deceased so as to prevent them to come to his rescue - Active participation of these accused also proved on..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 300, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3-- Murder - Eye witness has stated that he is related to accused person which means he was also related to deceased as accused persons and deceased were related - Despite being related to deceased, after death of deceased, witness did not go to house of deceased who was also residing in same area as..........

Showing : 2131-2140 of 14008 Results