Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC771IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2224 OF2014SANDEEP ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.MAHADEVAN, J.This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital1, in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 20062, whereby, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar3 in Sessions Trial No.208 of 19984.2. The appellant Sandeep along with two others viz., Veer Singh and Dharamveer, was tried for having caused the murder of one Abdul Hameed on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., and thereby committed the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and section 25/27 of 1hereinafter shortly referred to as the High Court 2Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand 3hereinafter shortly referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC207IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1607 OF2009JAFAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16.01.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.643 of 2008 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirming the conviction as recorded by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam (for short, trial court) for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 12. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 14.05.2004 at about 1:45 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 8 came in a vehicle bearing registrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC705IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1030/2023 MANOJ KUMAR SONI APPELLANT VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1458/2023 KALLU @ HABIB APPELLANT VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.1. These criminal appeals, by special leave, assail the common judgment and order dated 12th October, 2022 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur (High Court, hereafter) whereby Criminal Appeal No.10474 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.10549 of 2019 [appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC, hereafter)]. carried by Manoj Kumar Soni (Manoj, hereafter) and Kallu @ Habib 1 (Kallu, hereafter), respectively, were dismissed. While Manoj assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, hereafter) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and a default...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.157334 OF2018IN REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 11391140 OF2000IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2526 OF2000NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY APPLICANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.This is an application under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act) requesting this Court to hold that the applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code) was a juvenile on the date 2 of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of the applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. The applicant has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 19th February 1998 and 23rd February ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.644 of 2022 Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara ...Appellant Versus State of Gujarat ...Respondent JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant herein original 1 accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, & 328 of the IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.2. The appellant herein original accused was tried by the learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 120B & 201 of the IPC and under the provisions of the Arms Act. 2.1 As per the case of the prosecution the coac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No../2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No../2022 @ Diary No.34207/2018) ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI . APPELLANT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT1 There is a delay of 216 days in filing of this special leave petition against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Criminal Revision Application No.205/2014. Even though the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is blissfully vague and bereft of any material facts and particulars, keeping in mind the 1 for short, the High Court 2 subject matter involved, we deemed it appropriate to ignore/condone the delay and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.2. We must note that the respondents had faintly objected to the hearing of this matter on merits owing to unexplained delay in filing of the petition. However, they have a serious objection to the joining of Ms. Teesta S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.47-48 OF2021[Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos.6283-6284/2020]. LAKHVIR SINGH ETC. .Appellants VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The appellants were youngsters aged 20 and 19 years when they fell foul of the law. On 14.02.2003, at around 7.30 p.m., the appellants alongwith co-accused Gurpreet Singh1 approached the complainant PW1 to hire a taxi to go to a village. Enroute, when at their behest the car was stopped, Gurpreet Singh caught hold of the complainant and the appellant 1 He faced trial before a Juvenile Court. 1 Jagdeep Singh took a dagger and inflicted 6-7 injuries on PW1s forehead. Appellant Lakhvir Singh inflicted 2-3 injuries on his abdomen and 1 injury on his neck using a knife. The complainant was thrown out of his taxi and the three people fled with the taxi. In pursuance to the reporting of the crime by complainant, an FIR was registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE25H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1335 OF2019BETWEEN : Gangaraju @ Raju S/o Krishnappa Aged about 21 years Presently R/at 2nd Cross, Near Mythri Bazar, Cholanayakanahalli, Hebbala, Bengaluru-560024. Permanent resident of Goomaiah Gar Palli, Goramtala Mandal, Hindupur Taluk, Andhra Pradesh 515201. (By Sri Vikas.M., Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka By Hebbal Police Station Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001. (By Sri M Divakar Maddur, HCGP)... Petitioner Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2019 in Spl. C.C.No.161/2015 on the file of the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-55) sitting in the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District. This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day the Court made the follow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1864 OF2009JAGDISH AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANT(S) THE STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The two appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Originally there were 13 accused. Only six were charge-sheeted. Two of them were tried by the juvenile court. Seven were summoned under Section 319. The Trial Court convicted three persons. One of them, Ishwar has been acquitted by the High Court. 1 2. Sri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel, on behalf of the appellants submits that once the other accused have been acquitted, the two appellants alone cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court erred in convicting with the aid of Section 34 in absence of a charge framed under that Section. There is no evidence of any common intention, displaying a prior meeti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1392 OF2008SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI,J.1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1717 of 2003 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. On 17.04.2003 at around 09.45 a.m., deceased Rajendra Sahu came to the auto-stand near Baheti Hospital in his auto rickshaw. At around 12 noon when he was sitting on his auto-rickshaw, he saw one Maruti 800 bearing No.RJ-06C-3432 coming and three persons were sitting in the Car. Out of them, one of the occupants of the car opened the left front side door of the car and signalled Rajendra Sahu to come nearer to the car. T...
Tag this Judgment!