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

1993 Supreme(MP) 489

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
GUDDUBAI – Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR AWASTHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.D.GUPTA, S.C.DUTTA

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision of the complaint against the order dated 25. 8. 1990 passed by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trail No. 50 of 1990 whereby no charge has been framed against Salim Khan, Station Officer, Hardalpur and instead framing charge under section 302 I. P. C. , charges only under section 304 Part-II and section 201 I. P. C. have been framed against other accused (Non-applicants No. 1 to 3)

( 2 ) THE present criminal case was instituted against the non-applicants on the allegation that one Pontu Dhimar was arrested by the police for interrogation on the charge of Commission of theft. According to the allegation of two other prisoners lodged in the police station, deceased Pontu was beaten up by non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 who were employees in the staff of the police at the police station. The body of the deceased Pontu was recovered from a well and according to the medical opinion, he died of asphyxia.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who is widow of deceased Puntu, urged that the learned Judge of the trial Court instead of framing charge on the basis of the allegations c









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