1. Delay, if any, is condoned.

1. The appellant who is the original defendant before the trial Court has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 07.06.2011 whereunder the second appeal filed by him in S.A No. 1282...

1. The appellant, the accused no. 1, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’), has preferred this appeal. There were six accused.

1. Delay condoned.

1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:—

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

1. The substantial question arising for decision in this civil appeal is whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is...

1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

1. This appeal is at the instance of the original third, second, and fourth defendants. The first and second respondents are the original plaintiffs. The third respondent is the mother of the deceased original first defendant...

1. The appellants were subjected to trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections...