AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA
State Of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Maiyadeen – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. K. GUPTA, J.
The State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents No. 1 to 5 and 13 after getting leave vide order dated 9-1-1995 against the judgment dated 5-10-1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 77/1992, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under sections 302 or 302/149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16-7-1992, at about 6 p.m., the deceased Anandilal went to offer a pooja at Chabutara (Platform) of Thakur Baba, one mile away from village Banharikala (Police Station Ajaygarh, District Satna). He was accompanied by Shukla Ahirwar (P.W.9), Rammilan (P.W.1) and other family members and relatives. At about 7 p.m., the respondents along with other accused persons reached the spot. The respondent No. 1 Maiyadeen told the deceased Anandilal that his son had assaulted the son of the respondent Maiyadeen by Chappal and therefore, he would kill Anandilal and suddenly he gave a blow of Lathi (stick) on his head. Thereafter, all the accused persons brutally assaulted the deceased Anandilal with lathis (sticks). Hence, deceased Anandilal died at the spot. Rammilan who tried to save de
Baul and another vs. State of U. P.
Bhoor Singh vs. State of Punjab
Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra
Jai Narain Mishra and others vs. State of Bihar
Ramlal vs. State (Delhi Administration)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.