Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Babu Vs. State of U.P.

Babu vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 08, 1987
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/648248

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4667 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 115 of 1986
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ B.C. Ray and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.] -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 432 and 428 — State Government directed to reconsider petitioner's case tor his premature release -- The order refusing the prayer for premature release betrays lack of application of mind to the relevant considerations. We...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Section 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babu

Advocate Mr. Bana

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Reported In
1987Supp(1)SCC147

Excerpt

- [ b.c. ray and; m.p. thakkar, jj.] -- criminal procedure code, 1973 - sections 432 and 428 - state government directed to reconsider petitioner's case tor his premature release -- the order refusing the prayer for premature release betrays lack of application of mind to the relevant considerations. we, therefore, direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case latest by february 28, 1987 and to take afresh decision on principle in accordance with law giving full reasons in support of the said decision. meanwhile the petitioner shall be released on parole for three months.s. murtaza fazal ali, j.1. the appellant in this appeal by special leave was convicted under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. he was also convicted under section 324 of the ipc and sentenced to three years, rigorous imprisonment. we have gone through the judgments of the courts below and we do not find any force in this appeal. the only point which was argued by mr bana, learned counsel for the appellant, is whether in the circumstances of the case the offence committed by the appellant would fall under section 302 of the ipc or under section 304 parts i and ii of the ipc. there is clear evidence to show that the appellant was armed with a dagger and he assaulted deceased as also sewa singh who tried to intervene. the nature of the injury was 4 inches deep and was on a most vital part of the body namely the chest. according to the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. in these circumstances we are satisfied that the case of the appellant cannot be brought by any stretch of imagination to that under section 304, ipc. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the indian penal code. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.

1. The appellant in this appeal by special leave was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to three years, rigorous imprisonment. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below and we do not find any force in this appeal. The only point which was argued by Mr Bana, learned Counsel for the appellant, is whether in the circumstances of the case the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 302 of the IPC or under Section 304 Parts I and II of the IPC. There is clear evidence to show that the appellant was armed with a dagger and he assaulted deceased as also Sewa Singh who tried to intervene. The nature of the injury was 4 inches deep and was on a most vital part of the body namely the chest. According to the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the case of the appellant cannot be brought by any stretch of imagination to that under Section 304, IPC. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial