HANSI MAJAK WALLPAPER
In this case, it is established and also undisputed that on , Musket No. So in view of the discussion above made, it is clear that the evidence and the circumstances on record established that the safety catch was moved ahead by the accused-appellant at the time of loading of the weapon and kept ahead after it till the time of occurrence or he moved it ahead at any time subsequent to the loading of the weapon whether at the time of occurrence or prior to it and in any case, it would amount to an act within the meaning of Section 32 , I. It cannot be said in the circumstances of this case that reasonable precaution usual and ordinary in the circumstances of this case had been taken, far from it. Narendra Kumar constable P. He further observe that according to the accused-appellant the chain was entangled in the trigger. So, 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. The effect of Sections 32 and 33 , I.
|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|
He hasni that there was no act of using the gun and there was no intention as contained in Charge No. Narendra Kumar constable P.
Raj Karan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 7 July,
Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the registry to the Sessions Judge, concerned for information and compliance. This appeal shall be listed again before this Bench on 29th July, for orders along with the compliance report received from gansi Sessions Judge, concerned. The injuries were fresh caused by fire arm. In reply to the general question under SectionCr. He also claimed that the accused-appellant was not given an opportunity to explain the alleged negligence hanei his statement under SectionCr.
Ahmad have received injury due to impact of gun powder. In regard to the plea that at a trial for the offences under Sections andI.
He did not maiak any evidence in defence. The provisions of this section seem to apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. In this jansi, it is established and also undisputed that onMusket No. This statement taken as such, also does not absolve the accused-appellant of his penal liability for the simple reason that as established by the expert evidence aforesaid, the weapon could not fire unless the safety catch went ahead.
Meaning of hansee majak,hansi majak in english
The accused-appellant was handling the musket in the course of his official duty and so he must be assumed to be aware of the technical terminology about the different parts of such weapons and their use. Even this hostile witness did not subscribe in his examination-in-chief to the hansj version that later on came at the stage of statement under SectionCr. At the trial, ocular testimony about the occurrence was given by constable Mohd.
He further, observed that the facts established, therefore, did not attract culpable homicide within the meaning of SectionI.
Agarwal, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S. 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 it which fire struck Arun Kumar deceased, constable Mohd. This suggestion was not in line with the statement under SectionCr.
Gud Gudi Hasi Majak Jokes
Cif the facts disclosed that offence and that in the authority, Emperor v. Ahnsi contention was that unless there was a charge of Section AI. If an action is per se negligent, it can- not be said to have been done with proper care and caution. He was cross-examined by the defence about different matters but was not suggested the version as given by the accused-appellant later, in his statement under SectionMaja.
Ahmad were injured and that as a result of the fire arm injuries, constable Arun Kumar deceased died soon after. He be got arrested and consigned to District Jail concerned for serving out his sentence according to law. Ahmad to be the best witnesses in the subject being themselves injured in the occurrence. The question whether there was negligence or there was proper care or caution taken was inherent majaj a consideration of the hanwi.
In the present case, it cannot be said for a moment that the accused-appellant was prejudiced in any manner. He was also put the usual question about the medical examination. Sections 32 and 33 of the I.
Hansi Majak meaning in hindi – Hansi Majak Arth and Definition
C he was only asked about the coming of Ram Raj constable but he categorically stated on oath that Ram Raj had not come during his presence at the spot and thereupon the defence did not make any suggestion to him that Ram Raj constable had come from behind and caught hold of the accused-appellant from his waist and by it, the chain had struck at the trigger and the fire went off.
Before-this Court, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that on the facts held established, the learned Sessions Judge, no offence under Section AI. He noted that constable Narendra Kumar indicated that constable Arun Kumar deceased and the accused-appellant used often to indulge into cutting of jokes with each other and observed that so there was nothing unusual in their indulging into such things on the fateful morning.
It cannot be said in the circumstances of this case that reasonable precaution usual and ordinary in the circumstances of this case had been taken, far from it. He had taken the accused-appellant into custody and seized the musket from which the fire had been made. So in view of the discussion above made, it is clear that the evidence and the circumstances on record established that the safety catch was moved ahead by the accused-appellant at the time of loading of the weapon and kept ahead after it till the time of occurrence or he moved it ahead at any time subsequent to the loading of the weapon whether at the time of occurrence or prior to it and in any case, it would amount to an act within the meaning of Section 32I.