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
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.