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

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1158

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
NISAR AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


SL. Office Notes, No. Date reports, orders or COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures ABA No. 119 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Abhishek Verma on behalf of the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant placed before this Court the inquest report.

6. On perusal of the inquest report. It reveals that except the father in law of the deceased, no other family members from the side of the husband were present.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that both the applicants took very active role in committing the crime and in the post mortem there is a reference “ nasal secretion present in both nostril Mouth closed cleaned with teeth.” which cannot be a symptom of hanging rather is a case of strangulation.

8. In response to this, Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the doctor opined in the post mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to the ante-mortem injuries.

9. List

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