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.

Shamshad Vs. State of U.P.

Shamshad vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Nov 01, 2000
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/675568

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 Appeal No. 423 of 2000
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- [ K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.] - Criminal Trial — Injuries — Injuries on the person of accused — Plea for altering the offence under Section. 302 to that under Section. 304 Pt. I IPC -- That aspect alone cannot help for lowering the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC. It is ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 304, 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shamshad

Advocate Mr. B.B. Singh

Respondent

State of U.P.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 304, 302
Reported In
(2002)10SCC576

Excerpt

- [ k.t. thomas and; r.p. sethi, jj.] - criminal trial - injuries - injuries on the person of accused - plea for altering the offence under section. 302 to that under section. 304 pt. i ipc -- that aspect alone cannot help for lowering the offence from section 302 to section 304 part i ipc. it is to be noted that all those victims sustained very serious injuries and the injuries sustained by the deceased are devastatingly serious.k.t. thomas and; r.p. sethi, jj.1. we heard mr b.b. singh, learned counsel for the appellant and mr praveen swarup, learned counsel for the state of u.p. the concurrent finding on facts do not require interference by us. mr b.b. singh then made an alternative contention that the offence can be changed to section 304 part i ipc on the premise that it was not a premeditated murder. that aspect alone cannot help for lowering the offence from section 302 to section 304 part i ipc. the injuries sustained by the accused are all simple and he would have sustained them in the course of the action he lodged against the deceased and the two other injured pw 1 and pw 2. it is to be noted that all those victims sustained very serious injuries and the injuries sustained by the deceased are devastatingly serious. in the course of inflicting those injuries it is quite possible that they too would have resisted against the onslaughts and that would account for the minor injuries found on the person of the appellant. for those reasons we are not persuaded to interfere.2. this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.

1. We heard Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Praveen Swarup, learned counsel for the State of U.P. The concurrent finding on facts do not require interference by us. Mr B.B. Singh then made an alternative contention that the offence can be changed to Section 304 Part I IPC on the premise that it was not a premeditated murder. That aspect alone cannot help for lowering the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC. The injuries sustained by the accused are all simple and he would have sustained them in the course of the action he lodged against the deceased and the two other injured PW 1 and PW 2. It is to be noted that all those victims sustained very serious injuries and the injuries sustained by the deceased are devastatingly serious. In the course of inflicting those injuries it is quite possible that they too would have resisted against the onslaughts and that would account for the minor injuries found on the person of the appellant. For those reasons we are not persuaded to interfere.

2. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial