Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 148, 302 / 149 - the participation of accused cannot be doubted merely on the ground that being a lady, she would not have joined other accused persons in the murder of the deceased. Raja Ram v, State of U.P., [Allahabad High Court, Pritinker Diwaker & Raj Beer Singh, JJ.] Crl.A. No. 5307 of 2008 11-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - No person can be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion, no matter howsoever strong it may be. Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel & Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.] Crl.A. No. 1436 of 1999 11-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - No person can be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion, no matter howsoever strong it may be. Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel & Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.] Crl.A. No. 1436 of 1999 11-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 / 34 & 404 - Murder - Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death - Four minor children who were less than 5 years of age including their father and mother have been murdered by accused and his companions when they were helpless and nothing is on record to show that they aggravated the situation so as to arouse sudden and grave passion on the part of accused to commit such dastardly crime - Death punishment awarded to accused is confirmed. Gambhir Singh v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, Sudhir Agarwal & Om Prakash-VII, JJ.] Capital Case No. 1900 of 2017 09-01-2019]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 147 & 149 - there was no contract of insurance coverage existing between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending motor vehicle, at the relevant date, when the accident occurred and the claimant's son was died therein - In cases of motor vehicle owner entering contract of insurance with insurance company, subsequent to the accident that the liability will have to be of owner of the vehicle - M.A.C.T erred in directing the the Insurance Company in the award to pay compensation for and on behalf of the owners of the offending vehicle against whom the compensation was awarded, in the absence of any contract of insurance coverage. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tej Narain [Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.] F.A.O. No. 67 of 1996 09-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 302 / 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25 - Our social system is changing at a rapid pace. In the present social scenario, people refrain from going to police stations and courts due to fear of insult and harassment. Generally, people avoid to become a witness of an incident for the simple reason that deposing against the a culprit involved in a crime would endanger their life. In the present social setup, it is least possible that a third person deposes against the culprit. Rajveer v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, Vipin Sinha & Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.] Crl.A. No. 4902 of 2009 08-01-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 147 & 149 - there was no contract of insurance coverage existing between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending motor vehicle, at the relevant date, when the accident occurred and the claimant's son was died therein - In cases of motor vehicle owner entering contract of insurance with insurance company, subsequent to the accident that the liability will have to be of owner of the vehicle - M.A.C.T erred in directing the the Insurance Company in the award to pay compensation for and on behalf of the owners of the offending vehicle against whom the compensation was awarded, in the absence of any contract of insurance coverage. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tej Narain [Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.] F.A.O. No. 67 of 1996 09-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 302 / 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25 - Our social system is changing at a rapid pace. In the present social scenario, people refrain from going to police stations and courts due to fear of insult and harassment. Generally, people avoid to become a witness of an incident for the simple reason that deposing against the a culprit involved in a crime would endanger their life. In the present social setup, it is least possible that a third person deposes against the culprit. Rajveer v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, Vipin Sinha & Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ.] Crl.A. No. 4902 of 2009 08-01-2019