Judgment reserved on : October 26, 2009 Judgment delivered on : October 30, 2009
|
|
- Claud Tate
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on : October 26, 2009 Judgment delivered on : October 30, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.68/1996 DAYA RAM & ANR. THE STATE Versus Through: Through:... Appellants Mr.K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Y.N. Singh, Advocate.... Respondent Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. 1. Daya Ram and Suresh Chand having been convicted in terms of impugned judgment dated in Sessions Case No.9/92, FIR No.312/91, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for having committed murder of one Mahesh and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for attempting to commit Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 1 of 18
2 murder of PW2 Parmod Kumar and sentenced in terms of a separate order on sentence dated on both counts, have preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment and consequent order on sentence. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening th October 1991 at about 2:10 a.m., lady Constable Janesh from Police Control Room informed the Duty Officer, Police Station Okhla Industrial Area that a person had been stabbed with a knife in House No.445, Gali No.15, Tughlakabad Ext., New Delhi which was recorded as DD No.66-B (Ex.PW12/B). The Duty Officer conveyed the said information to S.I. Chinta Singh, who was on night patrol duty on wireless and also sent a police vehicle to Inspector Raghbir Singh for taking him to the spot of occurrence. S.I. Chinta Singh along with the other staff reached at the spot. Inspector Raghbir Singh PW24 also reached at the spot where he found that the injured persons had already been removed to the hospital by a PCR van. Inspector Raghbir Singh left S.I. Chinta Singh at the spot and went to AIIMS along with ASI Mahender Singh and other police staff. He obtained the MLC of the deceased Mahesh and injured Parmod Kumar. Mahesh was declared brought dead on his MLC and Parmod Kumar, injured was declared fit for making statement. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured Parmod Kumar Ex.PW2/A and sent it to the police station after endorsing it for the registration of FIR. On the basis Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 2 of 18
3 of said statement, formal FIR No.312/91 was recorded at the police station. 3. PW2 Parmod Kumar in his statement EX.PW2/A stated that his brother Munesh was resident of House no.445, Gali No.15, Tughlakabad Extension and his friend Rajender was also living with him in the aforesaid house with his family. He further stated that on the fateful night when he returned back from duty, his brother Mahesh (deceased) told him that neighbours of their brother Munesh had fought with him. On this, he along with deceased Mahesh proceeded to the house of Munesh at Tughlakabad to find out about his welfare. On reaching there, they found that Munesh and his friend Rajender were not at home. So they inquired about the quarrel from the wives of Munesh and Rajender. In the meanwhile, at about 2.00 a.m. in the night, the neighbours of Munesh, Daya Ram and his brother Suresh came inside the house. Daya Ram was carrying a knife in his hand. On entering the house, Suresh caught hold of the deceased Mahesh and exhorted Daya Ram by uttering the words Aaj Is Jhagrae Ko Khatam Hi Kar Detein Hain, Maar Sale Ko Chaku. Reacting to the exhortation, appellant Daya Ram stabbed Mahesh with a knife and when he(parmod) tried to catch hold of Daya Ram, Suresh let go of Mahesh and apprehended him and appellant Daya Ram stabbed him in his back. When his sister-in-law Guddo and wife of Rajender raised alarm, both the appellants ran away. Police reached after some time and took them to the hospital. Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 3 of 18
4 4. The Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan and he got the scene of crime photographed. He arranged for sending of dead body for post mortem examination. Both the accused were arrested and on interrogation, they made disclosure statements. Accused Daya Ram, pursuant to the disclosure statement got the weapon of offence i.e. Knife Ex.P1 recovered from the house of his brother Mahender Singh. Investigation revealed that prior to the occurrence in question an altercation between Munesh, brother of the injured Parmod Kumar and Mahender Singh, brother of the appellants had taken place in which Mahender Singh had sustained injuries and he was medically examined at AIIMS. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against both the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined 24 witnesses. The case of the prosecution, however is mainly based upon the eye-witness account of the occurrence narrated by PW1 Savitri Devi, wife of Rajender, injured PW2 Parmod Kumar and PW4 Guddo, wife of Munesh. PW8 Munesh, brother of the deceased deposed that earlier in the day he had an altercation with Mahender, brother of the appellants. PW15, Head Constable Babu Din had taken Mahender Singh who met him in injured condition, to AIIMS Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 4 of 18
5 on He also proved MLC Ex.PW19/A. PW23 S.I. Chinta Singh and PW24 Inspector Raghbir Singh are the police officers who conducted investigation in this case. Appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded where they took a defence of complete denial of having played any role in the occurrence. According to them, they have been falsely implicated by the complainant party because of their enmity with their real brother Mahender Singh. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the evidence of recovery of knife Ex.P1 at the instance of the appellant Daya Ram, which as per CFSL report Ex.PW24/F had stains of human blood group A which match with the blood group of the deceased Mahesh. Relying upon this, he found both the appellants guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as also charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has grossly erred in the appreciation of evidence. He has argued that the prosecution case is based mainly on the eye witness account given by PW1 Savitri Devi, PW2 Parmod Kumar and PW4 Guddo. He has submitted that none of the aforesaid witnesses is reliable and their testimony do not inspire confidence. Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 5 of 18
6 9. Regarding PW1, Savitri Devi, he has submitted that she is not a reliable witness, firstly because she could not tell how many stab blows were given by the appellant Daya Ram and in her examination-in-chief, she could not identify the weapon of offence Ex.P-1 and instead she categorically stated that it was not the knife which was used for stabbing. He has further submitted that besides the above infirmities, she has made improvements upon her earlier statement Ex.PW1/DA made to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. 10. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place in the wee hours of the night at around 2:00 AM in House No.445, Gali No.15, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi. As per the testimony of PW2 Parmod Kumar, his brother Munesh used to reside in the said house along with his friend Rajender Singh and his family. PW1 Savitri Devi is the wife of Rajender Singh, therefore, her presence at the house in wee hours of the night cannot be doubted. Merely because she could not identify the knife Ex.P-1 which was used in an occurrence which may not have taken more than few minutes, the credibility of her version cannot be doubted. So far as the improvements over the previous statement made to the Police is concerned, those are not in respect of the material aspects of the case. Therefore, in our considered view, much importance cannot be given to those inconsequential improvements which resulted in confronting of the witness with her statement Ex.PW1/DA. Another challenge to the testimony of PW1 Savitri Devi is that she could not tell how many stab wounds were Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 6 of 18
7 given by the appellant in a split of second action in which two persons were stabbed. It is not expected of a witness to keep an account of the stab wounds. Therefore, this infirmity also, in our view, is inconsequential. 11. Regarding PW4 Guddo W/o Munesh Kumar also, the stand of the appellant is that her testimony is not reliable because of several reasons. Firstly, she has made improvements, in her testimony in the court, over her earlier statement Ex.PW4/DA recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Secondly, as per the prosecution, though the site plan was prepared at her instance, she was not in a position to explain the site plan during her cross-examination. Thirdly, she was not in a position to tell who called the Police to the spot. Fourthly, she did not fully support the case of prosecution in her examination-in-chief and she had to be cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. 12. From the record, it is obvious that PW4 Guddo was examined after a lapse of almost one year from the date of occurrence. Therefore, it is not unnatural that she had forgotten some facts for which the APP had to seek permission to cross-examine her with a view to set the record straight. So far as the improvements made in the statement in the court viz-a-viz the earlier statement is concerned, we find that the improvements are not so material to suspect the correctness of her version and those can be attributed to lapse of Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 7 of 18
8 memory. The argument regarding the witness not being able to read and explain the site plan, to our mind, is misconceived because the site plan admittedly was prepared by the Police on the pointing out by the witness. This, however, does not mean that a witness who is not equipped to read and understand a site plan cannot point out the specific places or locations of appellant or victim etc. Thus, we find no reason to doubt the credibility of PW4 Guddo, whose presence at the spot in the wee hours of night in her house is natural. 13. Coming to Parmod Kumar, PW2. It is argued that he is not a reliable witness so far as identity of the appellant is concerned because he admittedly did not tell the Doctor, who prepared the MLC, the name of the assailants. This lapse, to our mind, is inconsequential because while preparing the MLC the Doctor is not supposed to seek all the facts from the patient, but his main concern is to attend to the injury of the patient and save his life. Otherwise also, the witness has explained that he did not name the assailants because the examining Doctor did not ask for the same. 14. Next challenge to the testimony of Parmod Kumar, PW2 is that his testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in support of the contention has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW2, Parmod Kumar who stated that two or three knife blows were given by the appellants to his Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 8 of 18
9 brother Mahesh, whereas according to the MLC of Mahesh Ex.PW19/C, he suffered only one stab injury. 15. The inconsistency pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is not that material so as to discard the testimony of PW2, Parmod Kumar, who also sustained injuries in the incident. Otherwise also, it has come in evidence that the occurrence took place suddenly. Therefore, the witness was not expected to keep count all the blows given to his brother Mahesh. Further PW1 Savitri Devi and PW4 Guddo have also supported the version of PW2 Parmod Kumar regarding stabbing of Mahesh by the appellants. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that as per cross-examination of PW2 Parmod Kumar, he has admitted that there was no quarrel between them and the appellants at the time of the incident and that they did not say anything at the time of the incident. This submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is misconceived and against the facts. He has tried to pick up one sentence from the cross-examination and quote it out of context. The witness actually stated that we had no quarrel with the accused persons. The quarrel was with their brother Mahender Singh because of flow of water to our house. No altercation or any quarrel took place at the time of incident. If aforesaid version is read as a whole, it means that the witness initially was referring to the earlier quarrel between his brother Mahesh when he stated that he had no Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 9 of 18
10 quarrel with the accused persons and in the latter part of his version when he stated that no altercation or any quarrel took place at the time of incident, he meant that neither he nor Mahesh fought with the appellants, which fact is clarified from the further statement of the witness to the effect that the accused persons rushed inside and caused the injuries all of a sudden. Thus, in our considered view, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Parmod Kumar. 17. From the evidence on record, it is obvious that PW2 Parmod Kumar also suffered stab injuries in the incident. Therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. He is categoric in his assertion that Mahesh was caught by appellant Suresh Chand and was stabbed by Daya Ram and when he tried to intervene, Suresh Chand left Mahesh (deceased) and caught him from his arm and Daya Ram appellant stabbed him in his back. His aforesaid version finds corroboration from the testimony of PW1 Savitri Devi and PW4 Guddo, whose presence at the time of occurrence also cannot be doubted. As per the evidence, both of them were residing in the house in which the stabbing took place. Therefore, their presence in the house at wee hours of the night i.e. 2:00 AM is natural. Further, it is highly improbable that PW2 Parmod Kumar in his anxiety to settle some score with the appellants would falsely implicate them and let the assailants, who killed his brother and also stabbed him go scot free. Thus, under the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 10 of 18
11 Trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of PW1, Savitri Devi, PW2 Parmod Kumar and PW4 Guddo to hold the appellants guilty of the charges. 18. The second submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that genesis of the occurrence which resulted in the death of Mahesh and injury to PW2 Parmod Kumar lies in the earlier incident of a quarrel between Munesh Kumar, brother of the deceased and Mahender, brother of the appellants. Despite of that the prosecution has failed to examine Mahender as a witness, nor has he been impleaded as an accused. This circumstance, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, leaves a gap in the prosecution case and makes the prosecution story doubtful. 19. We are not convinced with the above submission. Admittedly, Mahender who had an altercation with the brother of the deceased Mahesh is the brother of the appellants. Therefore, there was no purpose in prosecution citing him as their own witness because under the natural course of circumstances, he was expected to support the case of the appellants. The argument as to why he has not been made an accused with the appellants is also without any merit because unless the investigation revealed the role of Mahender in the occurrence, he could not have been cited as an accused. Thus, only because his brothers took upon themselves to take revenge from the Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 11 of 18
12 family members of the complainants, under law he could not have been cited as a co-accused. 20. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the MLC s either of PW2 Parmod Kumar or the deceased Mahesh. This has deprived the appellants of crossexamining the Doctor concerned and questioning him about the nature of injuries and whether or not those injuries could be caused by the knife Ex.P-1, which has resulted in a serious prejudice to the defence. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. On perusal of record, we find that MLC of PW2 Parmod Kumar Ex.PW19/B and MLC of the deceased Mahesh Ex.PW19/C have been proved on record by examining Kirti Uniyal, Record Clerk, AIIMS-PW19. As per his statement, these MLCs are in the hand writing of Dr. Sanjay Sood who had declared Mahesh as brought dead and had also declared PW2 Parmod Kumar to be fit for statement. Dr. Sanjay Sood has not been examined to prove the above medico-legal reports. In our considered view, though it may have been ideal if Dr. Sanjay Sood was examined to proved the MLCs, yet his non-examination is not of much significance because so far as PW2 Parmod Kumar is concerned, as per the MLC.Ex.PW19/B, the nature of injury suffered by him is opined as simple. Thus, non-examination of Dr. Sanjay Sood has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. Had this been a case of grievous injury or dangerous injury then, of course, the appellants could have a reason to Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 12 of 18
13 be aggrieved with the non-production of Doctor concerned which has deprived them to cross-examine him and seek clarification about the nature of injuries. So far as the deceased Mahesh is concerned, his dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the post mortem report is proved on record by PW20 Dr. Rajesh Kumar as Ex.PW20/A. Dr. Rajesh Kumar was also shown the knife Ex.P-1 and he opined that the injury found on the person of deceased could be possible with that knife. He has also given his opinion regarding cause of death. Since the Doctor who conducted the post mortem has been examined to prove the injuries on the persons of the deceased, cause of death and the fact whether or not the injury caused was sufficient to cause death, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant due to nonexamination of the Doctor who prepared the MLC of the deceased. 22. We find from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that knife Ex.P-1 (weapon of offence) was sent for serological examination and as per the report of serological examination Ex.PW24/F, blood stained were found on the knife and even the blood of human group A was found on the knife which matched with the blood group of the deceased which was also A. This also corroborates the testimony of eye witnesses PW1 Savitri Devi, PW2 Parmod Kumar and PW4 Guddo, which appears to be natural and truthful. Thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellants on both the counts. Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 13 of 18
14 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even if the prosecution case is taken to be true, then also the purported act of the appellants do not constitute the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC because in the given factual matrix of the case, the intention to cause death of the deceased is lacking. He has pointed out that as per the case of prosecution, admittedly only one stab blow was given to the deceased Mahesh, which is indicative of absence of intention to commit murder. Thus, he has urged us to convert the conviction under Section 302 IPC into the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the case of Surendra Bittu Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (1) CAR (SC) In order to appreciate the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at Section 300 IPC, which is reproduced thus: Section 300. Murder-Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 14 of 18
15 likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid Exception I-When culpable homicide is not murder-culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident Exception 2-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence Exception 3-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting or the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner Exception 5-Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent A plain reading of the above provision shows that a culpable homicide is murder if the wrongful act of the accused falls within either Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 15 of 18
16 of four clauses of Section 300 IPC unless the case is covered under any one of the five Exceptions. 26. On careful reading of eye witness account given by PW1 Savitri Devi, PW2 Parmod Kumar, injured and PW4 Guddo, we find that it is proved on record that the appellants had trespassed in the house of Munesh, brother of the deceased, in the late hours of night at 2:00 AM. Appellant Daya Ram at that time was holding a knife in his hand. On entering the house, appellant Suresh caught hold of the deceased and exhorted appellant Daya Ram to stab him and on his instigation, Daya Ram inflicted fatal injury on the neck of the deceased just below the chin, which is a vital part. In view of the aforesaid matrix, only inference which could be drawn is that the appellants had attacked the deceased Mahesh and PW2 Parmod Kumar with a knife in furtherance of their common intention to cause their death. 27. The judgment in the matter of Surendra Bittu Vs. State of Uttaranchal(Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case because aforesaid judgment was based upon its own peculiar factual matrix. In the said case matter, case of the prosecution was that the cattle belonging to the appellant had damaged the standing crops of the deceased and when he protested, hot words were exchanged. There was a scuffle and on the exhortation of his elder brother, the appellant fired a shot from his gun which caused fatal injury to the deceased. The Investigating Officer, however, did not find any Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 16 of 18
17 evidence in this behalf and since the underlying cause which resulted in exchange of hot words and scuffle was not established and only one gun shot was fired and also that the appellant was not apprehended at the spot, the Supreme Court took the view that in the aforesaid factual matrix it could not be said that the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased and concluded that the case against the appellant in that case would fall within Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Factual matrix of the case is entirely different. In the instant case, prosecution has been able to establish that the appellants armed with a deadly weapon, a knife, entered the house of Munesh in the late hours of the night at about 2:00 AM and suddenly one of them Suresh caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Daya Ram gave him fatal blow with the knife on the exhortation of Suresh and when PW2 Parmod Kumar tried to intervene, he was also stabbed by Daya Ram. From the aforesaid facts, it can be safely inferred that the appellants had trespassed into the house of Munesh with the intention to kill. Even as per the post mortem report Ex.PW20/A and the opinion of Dr. Rajesh Kumar, PW20, the injury inflicted on the neck of the deceased, which is obviously a vital part of the body was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the case of the appellants squarely falls within Section 300 IPC Clause Thirdly. 28. It may also be relevant to point out at this stage that learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has not been able to show us any Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 17 of 18
18 evidence which could bring the case of the appellants under either of the Exceptions to Section 300 IPC. 29. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 307 read with 34 IPC. 30. The result is that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 31. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. The appellants be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence. AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. OCTOBER 30, 2009 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. gm/pst Crl.A.No.68/1996 Page 18 of 18
... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP WITH
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: November 05, 2009 Judgment delivered on : November 10, 2009 + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.136/1998 RAJENDER SINGH @ MASTER Through:... Appellant Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.REV.P. 76/2009 Reserved on: 30th April, 2012 Decided on: 11th July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.REV.P. 76/2009 Reserved on: 30th April, 2012 Decided on: 11th July, 2012 ANIL KUMAR... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Malik and Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: CRL.A. 121/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: 01.04.2014 CRL.A. 121/2010 RAHUL & ORS. Through: Mr M.L. Yadav, Adv.... Appellant versus STATE OF DELHI Through: Mr
More informationThrough Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 450/1998. Versus. ... Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 383/1998 Reserved on: 10th January, 2014 Date of Decision: 24th January, 2014 CHANDER PAL SINGH... Appellant Through
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No 1289 of SK. KHABIR Appellant(s) VERSUS J U D G M E N T
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 1289 of 2012 SK. KHABIR Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T N. V. RAMANA,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Appeal (J) No. 63 of 2014 Bhupen Doley, Son of Late Punya Doley, Resident of Jon Misuk, Sisi Kolghor,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRL.L.P. 316/2013 DATE OF DECISION :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRL.L.P. 316/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 21.01.2014 STATE... Petitioner Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel
More information... Petitioner Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP.... Respondent. Through: None
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 16 th February, 2010 + Crl.L.P.No.266/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.14823/2009 STATE... Petitioner Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP Versus SHIBBU Through:
More information$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 48/2015 Date of decision:
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 48/2015 SHIV KUMAR & ANR. Through: Date of decision: 03.12.2015... Petitioners Mr.Vikas Padora and Mr.Vaibhav Aggarwal, Advocates. STATE versus
More informationPoint: MURDER: The act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight and in the heat of
1 Criminal Appeal Present: The Hon ble Justice Debiprasad Sengupta And The Hon ble Justice Prabhat Kumar Dey Judgment on: 19.01.2010 C.R.A. No. 347 of 2000 NIRANJAN SINGHA ROY Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
More informationCr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 136 of 2000(R)
1 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 136 of 2000(R) Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.3.2000 and 31.3.2000 respectively passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.
More information... Respondent Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 6 th November, 2009 Judgment Delivered on: 11 th November, 2009 + CRL.REV.P.575/2001 DHARAM PAL Through:... Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Mahajan,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT: ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Appeal No. 357of 2013 Sri Rabindra Das Appellant -Versus- The State of Assam Respondent -BEFORE- HON
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 30 th October, 2009 Judgment Delivered on: 06 th November, 2009 + CRL.R.P.985/2002 TIKA RAM versus Through:... Petitioner Mr.Harish Malhotra,
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 308 OF Venkatesan.Appellant. Versus J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2001 Venkatesan.Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu.Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
More information-versus- -versus- ----
1 Cr. Appeal(DB) No.1679 of 2003 WITH Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1547 of 2003 WITH Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1548 of 2003 WITH Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1568 of 2003 --- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS OF 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1382 1384 OF 2014 Bal Mukund Sharma @ Balmukund Chaudhry Etc., Etc....Appellants Versus The State of Bihar...Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-01-2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl. Appeal No.859 of 2000 1.Pukkraj 2.Kamalabai 3.Prakash 4.Kishore.. Appellants. Versus State rep.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1441 OF 2013 VS. J U D G M E N T
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1441 OF 2013 STATE OF RAJASTHAN... APPELLANT(S) VS. LEELA RAM @ LEELA DHAR... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2010 VERSUS J U D G M E N T
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2010 LALTU GHOSH STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS...APPELLANT...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, CRL.M.C. 2392/2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2392/2015 STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) RUPAK RANA AND + CRL.M.C. 3322/2015 RAJPAL RANA STATE & ORS....
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO.7483 OF 2017) REPORTABLE Tularam..Appellant versus The State of Madhya
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS of 2008 SHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.484-487 of 2008 REPORTABLE SHEIKH JUMAN & ANR. ETC.... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS: STATE OF BIHAR... RESPONDENT(S) Pinaki Chandra
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh ) Crl.Appeal No.101 of 2009
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh ) Crl.Appeal No.101 of 2009 Sri Ratia Gowala S/O Sri Kishan Gowala R/O Nimana Garh T.E. P.S. Mathurapur, Dist.-Sivasagar,
More informationNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 27/05/2015 in Complaint No. 151/1998 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. PAWAN KUMARI
More informationSupreme Court of India. Lallu Manjhi & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar.
Supreme Court of India Lallu Manjhi & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2003 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 15 of 2002 PETITIONER: Lallu Manjhi & Anr.
More informationCrl. Appeal No. 334/2015 VERSUS. The State of Assam & Anr. B E F O R E HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Crl. Appeal No. 334/2015 Md. Ziaur Rahman @ Jiaur Rahman @ Jaibur Rahman VERSUS The State of Assam & Anr. Appellant
More information2. This appeal preferred by the State challenges the. judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1204 of 2015) STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant Versus RAJ KUMAR...Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.882/2005 (C)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA BETWEEN: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.882/2005 (C) Amjad, S/o Sabjan,
More information-:1:- IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS ROHINI DELHI
-:1:- IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS ROHINI DELHI SC No. 100/2 dated 20/12/2006 Date of Decision: 02/04/2007 State Versus 1. SURESH S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh R/o
More informationSultanabegum vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2007
Supreme Court of India Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 141 of 2006 PETITIONER: SAYARABANO @ SULTANABEGUM RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014 CRL.A. 431/2013 & CRL.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014 CRL.A. 431/2013 & CRL.MB 654/2013 RAHUL Through: Ms. N.R. Nariman, Advocate versus... Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 3710/2007. Date of decision: February 06, 2009.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl.M.C. 3710/2007 Date of decision: February 06, 2009 GEETIKA BATRA... Through : Petitioner Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sheel
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.672 of 2006 & CRIMINAL M.B. NO.1463 OF 2006 Date of Decision: 14th August, 2007 RADHEY SHYAM Through: Mr. R.K. Thakur
More information+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 of versus -
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on: 22 nd July, 2010 + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 of 1994 Rajneesh Kumar & Anr.... Appellants - versus - State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)...Respondent
More informationPerceptive Clarification Betwixt Culpable Homicide And Murder - An Analysis
Perceptive Clarification Betwixt Culpable Homicide And Murder - An Analysis N. Prabhavathi, M. Malathi and A. Nirmal Singh Heera Assistant Professors, School of Law, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur,
More informationversus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : December 11, 2015 + BAIL APPLN. 1596/2015 & Crl.M.A. Nos.7527/2015 & 7810/2015 HARI SINGH Through: versus... Petitioner Mr.Deepak Prakash,
More informationCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 18 th March, 2010 Judgment Pronounced on: 26 th March, 2010 + CRL.APPEAL NO.193/2008 PREM PAL STATE Through: versus Through:... Appellant
More informationoutside and saw that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal Nos. 786-789 of 2003 Decided On: 28.05.2009 State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Mukundakam Sharma and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. Mukundakam Sharma,
More informationNOTE: SAMPLE TEACHING MATERIAL ISSUED BY FORENSICINDIA.COM FOR TEACHING PURPOSE ONLY. ILLEGAL COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION IS STRICTLY RESPRICTED. SPELLING ERROR IF ANY IS DEEPLY REGRETED. WWW.FORENSICINDIA.COM
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No of 2014 with I.A. No. 175 of 2011 in Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No. 904 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 1409 of 2014 with I.A. No. 175 of 2011 in Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No. 904 of 2008 1. Prabir Pradhan @ Pravir Pradhan 2. Amit Dubey Appellants I.A. No. 1079 of
More informationIN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.
1 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. Crl. Appeal No. 2/18 of 2012 (Arising out of judgment dtd. 12.4.12 in GR case No.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MEGHALAYA; MANIPUR; TRIPURA; MIZOAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MEGHALAYA; MANIPUR; TRIPURA; MIZOAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRIMINAL APPEAL 75/2003 Sri Halla Dhar Das, Son of Late Soneswar Das, Village
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH. Crl. Appeal No.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH Smt. Moni Orang - Versus The State of Assam - Appellant - Opposite party BEFORE HON
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3603/2015 & Crl.M.A.12792/2015 Reserved on: Date of decision:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3603/2015 & Crl.M.A.12792/2015 Reserved on: 10.12.2015 Date of decision: 18.12.2015 VARGHESE CHERIYAN Through... Petitioner Mr.Bharat Sharma, Adv. with
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Decided On : CRIMINAL APPEALS NOS.1179, 1250 AND 1506/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Decided On : 14.02.2012 CRIMINAL APPEALS NOS.1179, 1250 AND 1506/2011 CRL APPEAL-1179/2011, CRL.M.(BAIL) 1657/2011 BIJENDER @ VIJAY FAUJI
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.13/2012 The State of Mizoram. Appellant. -Versus 1. Sh. David Lalthuammawia, 2. Sh. B. Lalruatfela,
More informationPREPERED BY: MR. MOHAMAD YOUSUF DAR
1 LAW OF CRIMES II UNIT I COURSE LLB 2 ND SEMESTER PREPERED BY: MR. MOHAMAD YOUSUF DAR The objectives of this lecture are: To understand the meaning of Culpable Homicide. To study the Principle of liability
More informationMurder versus Culpable Homicide: The distinction revisited
Murder versus Culpable Homicide: The distinction revisited Murder (defined under Section 300) and culpable homicide (defined under Section 299) are two offences under the Penal Code the distinction between
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No(s). 1025/2011 VERSUS JUDGMENT
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No(s). 1025/2011 MADAN @ MADHU PATEKAR Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) JUDGMENT N.V.
More informationCRL.A. No.94/2011. CRL.A. No.783/2011. CRL.A.6/2012 & Crl.M.B. 12/2012. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Reserve :16.02.2012 Date of decision:20.03.2012 CRL.A. No.94/2011, 783/2011 & 6/2012 CRL.A. No.94/2011 GOMATI @ MANOJ Through
More informationSharda vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2009 REPORTABLE
Supreme Court of India Author:...J. Bench: Aftab Alam, Deepak Verma Crl.A.No. 699/08 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.699 OF 2008 Sharda...Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate....Appellants
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) Criminal Appeal No. 188 (J) of 2007 Shri Ajit @ Anil Mahapatra. Versus The State
More informationRailway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, being aggrieved by the judgment. dated , passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI --- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 324 of 2013 --- Sri Paramanand Vimal, S/o Sri Sukhdeo Singh, Resident of Village Raunia, P.O. Raunia, P.S. Khijarsaray, District-Gaya,
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK Case No: CC 12/2011 In the matter between: THE STATE versus ABRAHAM ALFEUS Neutral citation: S v Alfeus (CC 16/2011) [2013]
More informationBEFORE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM) Criminal Appeal No. 129(J) of 2013 Appellant/Accused. Brindaban Mandal and another Respondents. The State of Assam
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1704/2014 Date of decision: 19th February, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1704/2014 Date of decision: 19th February, 2015 KARAN @ VICKY Through Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate.... Appellant versus
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No of 2015) Versus
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9151 of 2015) Shamsher Singh Verma Appellant Versus State of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos. 1815-1816 of 2016) DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL... APPELLANT
More informationJ U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Supreme Court of India Shaik Mastan Vali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2007 Author:. A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1003 of 2007 PETITIONER:
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. # SUNIL SONU... Appellant! Through: Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Adv. with Mr.J.L.Singh, Advocate.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A.No.446/2005 % Reserved on: 18 th March, 2010 Date of Decision: 25 th March, 2010 # SUNIL KUMAR @ SONU... Appellant! Through: Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Adv. with
More informationSurinder Singh And Anr vs State Of U.P on 5 September, 2003
Supreme Court of India Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 896 of 1996 PETITIONER: SURINDER SINGH AND ANR. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/09/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Date of Decision: 12th November, 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1984.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of Decision: 12th November, 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1984 STATE Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate.Appellant Versus SHYAM SUNDER..Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Motor Vehicles Act, MAC App. No.528/2008 and CM No.14983/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 MAC App. No.528/2008 and CM No.14983/2008 Judgment reserved on: 23rd October, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 17th November, 2008
More informationBar & Bench (
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 208 of 2019) PERIYASAMI AND ORS....APPELLANTS Versus S. NALLASAMY...RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE RESERVED ON : 28th January, 2013 DECIDED ON : February 05, 2013 CRL.A.No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE RESERVED ON : 28th January, 2013 DECIDED ON : February 05, 2013 CRL.A.No.323/1999 SUBHASH & ANR.... Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. Revision 11/2004 Sri Pintu Das, Son of Late Arun Das Resident of Philobari
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5144 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5144 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI SURENDRA BABU R S/O SRI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Crl. Rev. P. No.286/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. P. No.286/2009 Reserved on : 09.07.2010 Date of Decision : 12.08.2010 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI).Petitioner Through : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC versus
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6684/2013) D. T. Virupakshappa Appellant (s) Versus C. Subash
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE. CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No /2009(Stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 10941/2009(Stay) Reserved on: 17th February, 2012 Decided on: 1st March, 2012 YASHPAL KUMAR
More information1993 SCR (1) SCC Supl. (3) 150 JT 1993 (4) SCALE (1)637
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1)1087, 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 150 Bench: Verma, J Saran PETITIONER: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: RAGHUBIR SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1993 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH
More information$~R-22 and 23 (Part-A) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 5 th August, CRL.A. 269/
$~R-22 and 23 (Part-A) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 5 th August, 2015 + CRL.A. 269/2015 VIRENDER @ VEERU... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Javed Alvi
More informationDate of hearing Date of judgment JUDGMENT AND ORDER.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya,Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52(J) O5 Md. Muslemuddin..Appellant Versus- State of Assam...
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision: Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, APP. Versus. Through Nemo
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.A No.10232/2008 & Crl. LP No.182/2008 % Date of Decision: 21.10.2010 State Badrul & Ors. Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, APP Versus Through Nemo. Petitioner.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6449 of 2014) vs.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6449 of 2014) MANIK TANEJA & ANR.... Appellants vs. STATE OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY W.P (C ) No. 16041/2006 Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006 Judgment delivered on: November 8, 2006 B. MURALI KRISHNAN.... Petitioner
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MAC. APP. No. 32/2008. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: 4th August, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Motor Vehicles Act MAC. APP. No. 32/2008 Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2008 Judgment delivered on: 4th August, 2008 R. Murgadas and Ors.... Appellant. Through:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK. CRLMC No Of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK CRLMC No. 3031 Of 2006 An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.844 of 2003 pending on the file of S.D.J.M.,
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 26.10.2017 % Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2018 + CRL.A. 86/2013 DIL BAHAR THR. HIS PAROKAR AJMERI BEGUM Through: versus... Appellant Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of decision: CRL.L.P. 598/2011, Crl. M.A.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: INDIAN PENAL CODE Date of decision: 07.03.2012 CRL.L.P. 598/2011, Crl. M.A. 19759/2011 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through : Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC.... Petitioner
More informationAnil Goswami Appellant( Cr. Apl. No. 485 of 2009) Ashok Rawani Appellant(Cr. Apl. No. 625 of 2009) -Versus-
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.485 of 2009 With Criminal Appeal(S.J.) No. 625 of 2009 --- Against the common judgment of conviction dated 8.5.2009 and order of sentence dated 12.5.2009 passed by Shri Vijay
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1115 OF BHAV SINGH Appellant VERSUS WITH
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2010 BALVIR SINGH Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1116 OF
More informationGRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION AS A MITIGATING FACTOR TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE
An Open Access Journal from The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 200 GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION AS A MITIGATING FACTOR TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE Written by Kuldeep Singh Research Scholar
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 69 70 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.4139 4140 of 2017) Sudhir Kumar..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and
More informationFlorida Jury Instructions. 7.2 MURDER FIRST DEGREE (1)(a), Fla. Stat.
Florida Jury Instructions 7.2 MURDER FIRST DEGREE 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat. When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF NISHAN SINGH & ORS...Appellant(s) :Versus:
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10145 OF 2016 NISHAN SINGH & ORS...Appellant(s) :Versus: ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF Versus
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2011 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN APPELLANT(S) Versus STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB
More informationCRL.APPEAL No. 97/2005
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MEGHALAYA; MANIPUR; TRIPURA; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRL.APPEAL No. 97/2005 1. Abu Taher, S/o Nurul Haque 2. Basiruddin Choudhury S/o Lt. Arzad
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Crl.Rev.260/2011 Date of Decision: Versus...
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Crl.Rev.260/2011 Date of Decision: 27.04.2012 SANDEEP DIXIT Through: Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate.... PETITIONER STATE Through: Ms.Fizani Husain,
More information... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 16 th March, 2010 + Crl.L.P.No.129/2009 STATE... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP versus RAJESH GUPTA @ TITU... Respondent Through:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Crl. Rev. No. 12/2002. Reserved on October 16, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Crl. Rev. No. 12/2002 Reserved on October 16, 2008 Pronounced on December 20,2008 Dr. Harish Vohra @ Dr. Harish Bora Through :- Mr.Sumit
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CRL.M.C. 4966/2014 & Crl. M.A /2014. Versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: October 1, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 4966/2014 & Crl. M.A. 17011/2014 VIJAY KUMAR WADHAWAN... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Tarun Goomber, Mr. Gaurav
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7284 of 2016) CHANDRAKESHWAR PRASAD @ CHANDU BABU Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.515-516 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 6453-54 of 2015) MUNSHIRAM APPELLANT (S)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, 2014. RFA 269/2013 GANGADHAR PADHY... Appellant Through: Counsel for the appellant (appearance not given)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY BETWEEN: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1194 OF 2008 1. Sharnabasappa,
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. versus % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.433/1999 Date of Decision: 1 st April, 2014 MOHD. SHAHID STATE + CRL.A.456/1999 Through: versus Through:... Appellant Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Advocate... Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2785/2009
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BETWEEN BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2785/2009 1. BASU SHANKRAPPA CHAVAN @ LAMANI,
More information