Babloo @ Ranjit vs State Of U.P.

  Allahabad High Court Babloo @ Ranjit vs State Of U.P. on 12 March, 2019 Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Raj Beer Singh HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 26.02.2019 Delivered on 12.03.2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1881 of 2008 Babloo alias Ranjit S/o Shiv Prasad ----- Appellant Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ----- Respondent. WITH … Continue reading Babloo @ Ranjit vs State Of U.P.

Babu Lal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

Excerpt: Allahabad High Court Babu Lal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2019 Bench: Ramesh Sinha HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1033 of 2018 Revisionist :- Babu Lal And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And … Continue reading Babu Lal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

need more than prima facie evidence to summon additional accused under crpc 319

Excerpt: Considering the fact that there was bald allegation of general in nature against the petitioners, who have separate living and the investigating officer after thorough investigation did not find sufficient evidence, has not filed the charge sheet against them, but the trial court merely on the basis of the reiteration of the allegation in … Continue reading need more than prima facie evidence to summon additional accused under crpc 319

money demanded for redeeming mortagaged land is not dowry

Excerpt: To prove a case to fall within a perview of dowry death, the prosecution has to prove that there was demand of dowry, for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry there was cruelty and death has occurred within seven years of marriage. 17. In this case, the demand of Rs.10,000/- was for redeeming the mortgaged … Continue reading money demanded for redeeming mortagaged land is not dowry

Excerpt:Prosecution should not conceal the facts which were in its knowledge or collected during investigation that could materially effects the issue under consideration of the court to arrive at a truth. If prosecution concealed such fact an adverse inference should have been drawn under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act . Allahabad High Court Rajoo Yadav vs … Continue reading