hansi majak

Section A deals with homicide by negligence. In his statement under Section , Cr. In regard to the plea that at a trial for the offences under Sections and , I. It cannot be doubted that the act of the accused- appellant as established at the trial at any rate showed gross negligence on his part in handling the weapon aforesaid and that his act was the proximate cause of the death of Arun Kumar constable deceased and also of the simple hurts sustained by Narendra Kumar and Mohd. He has lodged the FIR of this case. The compliance report shall be submitted by the Sessions Judge to this Court within 15 days from today. Ahmad, that there arose no occasion indeed for any such intention to be formed nor did the deceased come to realise the consequence which might ensue.

Name: Nazragore
Format: JPEG, PNG
License: For Personal Use Only
iPhone 5, 5S resolutions 640×1136
iPhone 6, 6S resolutions 750×1334
iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus resolutions 1080×1920
Android Mobiles HD resolutions 360×640, 540×960, 720×1280
Android Mobiles Full HD resolutions 1080×1920
Mobiles HD resolutions 480×800, 768×1280
Mobiles QHD, iPhone X resolutions 1440×2560
HD resolutions 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440, Original

Ahmad injured and also constable Narendra Kumar injured. Another aspect is the position of the safety catch. It is also clear that at the stage of trial, the plea of applicability mqjak Section AI. Therefore, it could have been loaded by him either at the time of its issue to him or subsequent to it at any time prior to the occurrence or at the time of occurrence, it could not get automatically loaded. He had taken the accused-appellant into custody and seized the musket from which the fire had been made.


Agarwal, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S. In the present case, it cannot be said for a mjaak that the accused-appellant was prejudiced in any manner.

Free maja, one month and pay only if you like it.

Raj Karan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 7 July,

There is evidence of the ballistic expert O. In that case, the accused was originally charged under SectionI. Sections 32 hani 33 of the I. Cthe accused-appellant was put questions on the point of motive, and the circumstance that he took out cartridge and loaded it in the government musket and fired with majqk which fire struck Arun Kumar deceased, constable Mohd. Cites 17 docs – [ View All ].

Gud Gudi Hasi Majak Jokes

He rejected this plea observing that the handling of the dangerous weapon loaded musket required caution to be observed and that he could not play with it standing at a close range. Ahmad, and consequently, held him guilty of the offence under Section AI. Therefore, his mere claiming in his statement under SectionCr. The defence version as given under SectionCr. So, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant was prejudiced in any majqk by his conviction under Section AI. The definition of Section 80I.

Before the learned Sessions Judge, there was no bansi that the occurrence took place at 6. Consequently, this appeal has no force on merits. As noted earlier, the learned Sessions Judge has found that there was no support to the claim of the accused in his statement under SectionCr. He also found on the basis of the medical opinion that constable Narendra Kumar and Mohd.


He further observed that the word “knowledge” is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability, that the accused cannot be said to have caused death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

The witness has refuted the suggestion. Majxk, in any case, his omission to put and keep the safety catch in the back position was undoubtedly an illegal omission on his part which is established beyond every shadow of doubt. His bail nansi cancelled.

Narendra Kumar constable P. Ahmad were injured and that as a result of the fire arm injuries, constable Arun Kumar deceased died soon after. Mofizel Peada 29 CWN The word “act” denotes, as well a series of acts, as a single act; the word “omission” denotes, as well a series of omissions, as a single omission. He found that there is no support to this from any piece of evidence. We have noted the plea taken by him at the trial.

Even on point of sentence, there is no ground to interfere. Whether it may be called a positive act or an omission to act in the common parlance, this act or illegal omission is established beyond doubt.