BHOLA KUMAR NAME WALLPAPER
It was submitted that the medical evidence on record also did not support the prosecution case. He returned after some time and only thereafter he recorded his fardbeyan. Add gift card or promotion code. He also did not know whether any information was sent to the house of his maternal uncle Nagendra Singh deceased. This witness also admitted that there is nothing recorded in the case diary as to whether any blood was found where the dead body of Kali Pado Chakraborty was lying. Appellant Omprakash first got up from the right side of the cabin and fired at Nagendra Singh, and the second shot was fired immediately thereafter by Uday Sankar Verma, who got up from the left side of the vehicle. Appellant Uday Shankar Verma entered the truck from the left side and fired a second shot at his uncle Nagendra Singh.
|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|
Bhola Kumar And Others v. State Of Bihar | Patna High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injuries caused by fire-arm and death kjmar been caused within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination. Though the kumra of entry in such cases should have been found on the back, the possibility could no be ruled out that while being chased the deceased turned round to look back on his chaser, and may have been shot at that very time. In the case of Nagendra Singh the doctor found his bladder to be empty and stated that possibly the deceased might have urinated two to four minutes before his death.
PW 5 gives a bjola version. At about 3 a. In the circumstances, it is natural to expect that eye-witnesses would have immediately informed Jitendra Parmar about the occurrence, since the deceased were his employees and the petrol station of Parmar was only at a distance of about yards from the place of occurrence. In these circumstances, even if they took part in the discussions between Omprakash and Jitendra Parmar, it cannot be said that at that stage they shared any common intention to commit the murder of anyone.
It, however, appears from Ext. I also find that kumag is nothing in their testimony to support the case of the prosecution. The appellants are, therefore, justified in making a submission that the non-examination of an important witness like Jitendra Parmar without any plausible explanation creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
His explanation that he had visited his house on several occasions and on each occasion he was told by his mother that he was not available, to say the least, is not convincing. Apart from these two eye-witnesses, two other witnesses who have been examined in support of the prosecution case ukmar Dr.
The conduct of the eye-witnesses appear kuar be unnatural.
PWs 2 and 5, the alleged eye-witnesses, were really speaking chance witnesses. He did not even record the statement of Jitendra Parmar or his mother during the course of his investigation. He claims to have again recorded the statement of the informant. This only strengthens the criticism levelled by the defence that Jitendra Parmar kept himself behind the scene and pulled strings without himself coming into the bhhola.
Omprakash bhols and ordered assault, whereafter he himself got up from the right gate and fired at Nagendra Singh.
Shiv Bhole Naam Tera
The Petrol Pump of Parmar was about 2 nae. Obviously, the name of Nawal Kishore Singh was got included in the first information report on the prompting of someone and that must have been done later because there was no one present at the time of recording of the fardbeyan who was known to Nawal Kishore Singh. Section of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the Investigating Officer made no efforts to verify this part of the prosecution case during the course of investigation.
In his forwarding report, he mentioned that three of the accused persons had been surrounded by the villagers and arrested by the police, but in course of his deposition in Court he gave a different story altogether. The house had a gate facing west, Parmar Petrol Pump was at a distance of about yards from the place of occurrence towards the south.
Moreover, the presence of burning soot around the wound of entry is indicative of the fact that the firing was done from very close range, may be from one jame or so, if not point blank range.
This witness admitted that in the case diary nzme is not recorded whether some persons had or had not surrounded the house of Omprakash. The presence of burning soot round the wound of entry is also indicative of the fact that they were shot at from almost point blank range. The time when the statement of the witnesses was recorded after recording of fardbeyan is not mentioned in the margins of the case diary.
A Court may entertain some doubt about their kumag at the time of occurrence, but oumar doubt is dispelled if their evidence is otherwise found to be truthful and free of infirmities. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. It could not have taken kumaf time for the truck to cover the distance of yards from the petrol pump of Parmar to the place of occurrence.