SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 3085

VINOD PRASAD
KUNWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Raj Kumar Mishra

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) THE revisionist complainant Kunwar singh is aggrieved by an order dated 30-10-2006 passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Etwah in Criminal Case No. 106 of 2006, Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and others, under Section 155 (2), Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) IN short, the allegations of the revisionist Kunwar singh were that on 5-6-2006 opposite party Ram Sewak, his son Arvind, his brother Ram Das and Bhoop Singh brother Of Arvind belaboured his father Ram naresh at 4. 00 p. m. on his roof. Medical examination of Ram Naresh was got done on 5-6-2006 at 6. 55 p. m. , and his medical report indicated two lacerated wounds, which were sustained by the injured. The x-ray report dated 6-6-2006 of the injured indicated that there was a fracture of his right parietal bone of skull. The F. I. R. lodged by the revisionist complainant on 5-6-2006 at 5. 05 p. m. at police station Ekdil regarding the said incident was registered as NCR. Since the F. I. R. was registered as a N. C. R. and there was a grievous injury sustained by the injured, therefore, the revisionist filed an application under Section 155 (2), Cr. P. C. in th












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top