REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJ RANI Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D STEPHENS VS. NOSIBOLLA [REFERRED TO]
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. SARJU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHETRABASI SAMUAL F VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA VS. RAM NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
DULI CHAND VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA VS. MUHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH CHAUDHARY VS. RAMAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM BRIKSH SINGH VS. AMBIKA YADAV [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JOHAR VS. MANGAL PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SHERA RAM ALIAS VISHNU DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVASHARANAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel of revisionist and learned AGA for State of U.P.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1994, acquitting accused-respondents- 2 to 4 from offence under Sections 307 / 34 and 326 IPC. Being aggrieved, informant preferred present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist contended that Court below has not properly appreciated evidence in acquitting opposite party. He tried to take this Court to the judgment of Court below and made his endeavor to show that view taken by Court below in appreciating the evidence is not correct.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address