B.M.GUPTA
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Ramlakhan Singh – Respondent
1. All these three petitions are arising out of one common order, hence as agreed to by all the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts of the case of prosecution, as per the FIR are, that during intervening night of 5th and 6th August 2001 at about 1:00 am., Ramlal Kaul, CJM Vidisha (hereinafter referred as the deceased) was admitted in District Hospital Vidisha. He was feeling severe pain in his chest. He was attended by his son Ravindra Kaul and Priyadarshan Sharma, JMFC. Accused Dr. Ramlakhan Singh was on duty, who attended the deceased. During treatment he put oxygen mask on the face of the deceased. Immediately after putting the mask, deceased started feeling restlessness, which was reported by Ravindra Kaul to the doctor, on which Dr. Ramlakhan Singh checked the gas cylinder and found the same as empty. Immediatel y he removed the mask from the face. During that time, another doctor Bansal came and after examining the deceased declared him as dead. During treatment this accused Dr. Ramlakhan Singh sent calls to call Medical Specialist Dr. Bagrecha. When he could not be available, he sent further calls to accus
1. Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat = [AIR 1972 SC 1150]
3. Dr. Smt. Beena Yadu v. State of Madhya Pradesh = [2003(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 243, 2004(II) MPJR 63]
5. Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi and another = [(2004)6 SCC 422]
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.