Court : Mumbai
1 These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 28/03/1990 rendered by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1987. In all 3 accused came to be tried in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2 By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 from all the charges and therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990 by the State of Maharashtra against the said order of acquittal. Accused no.1 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Hence, he has filed Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1990 against the said order of conviction and sentence. He was released on bail by this Court on 18/06/1990, pending his appeal. 3 As per the prosecution case accused no.2 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh was a tailor by profession and the husband of accused no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 23, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 30, 2014 % + CRL.A. 147/2000 LAXMI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Harpreet Singh Popli, Advocate with Mr.Atul Bhuchar and Ms.Avantika Yadav, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Laxmi and Sheela have been held guilty for having burnt Rajbala with the common intention of killing her at 1:45 PM on September 20, 1995 at House No.RZ-228, Double Storey, Harijan Colony, Tilak Vihar, Delhi. The verdict of guilt is as per the judgment dated February 28, 2000. Both have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as per the order dated February 29, 2000. The learned Additional Session Judge has accepted the statement Ex.PW-15/B made by Rajbala to ASI Om Prakash PW-15, as her dying declaration. The testimony of Ms.Sunita PW-2 and Kumari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Deka, J.1. This appeal is from Jail on behalf of Tirtha Bahadur linojal alias Kurtha Bahadur Bhojal who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, L. A. D. Under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. The accused was tried along with another person by the name of Jay Bahadur alias Lama Nepali of an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code and the Jury having returned a verdict of not guilty against the other accused and one of guilty against the present appellant Under Section 302, I, P. C. he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.2. The prosecution case is that one Kalaram Kalita of Majirgaon or the Palasbari Police Station started for Malaibari, a place about four miles off from the Railway Station at Khetri, on 16-4-1952, a Wednesday, with some money in his possession but he had not as a matter of fact arrived at his destination and was found to be missing since then. Three persons Govinda Ram Kalita, Lohit Kalita and Kalaram Kal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC695
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. These appeals filed by special leave granted on different dates arise out of two separate judgments passed by the Allahabad High Court on March 20, 1950. They relate to an occurrence of riot which took place at Manikarnika Ghat, Banaras, on December 9, 1947, at about 1 P. M. They have been heard together and will be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The plan prepared in the case shows that Manikarnika Ghat has a tank known as the Manikarnika Kund. To the south of the Kund is a narrow lane about 7 feet wide and towards further south is a stone platform called 'Takhat Hazara'. To the east of Takhat Hazara is the Takhat of Gajanand. Towards the east of Gajanand's Takhat is the Sindhia Ghat and on the west of Takhat Hazara is a stone-paved platform and to the west of this platform there is a place called 'Charan Paduka'. To the south of the platform there is Chunawali-Marhi where Anjaninandan's Takhats are kept. To the west of Takhat Hazara there is a place called dasg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
D.P.S. Choudhary and M.L. Visa, JJ.1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 364 and 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively, by the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger, vide his order dated 11th January, 1996, in Sessions case No. 383/91.Accused-appellant Medo Manjhi and co-accused Tejo Manjhi were facing trial before the Court below, but subsequently, since Tajo Manjhi absconded, his trial was separated.2. The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant Babulal Manjhi, P.W. 1, in his fardbeyan, Ext. 2, recorded on 21-1-90, at 12 noon by the Officer-Incharge, Dharahra Police Station, district Munger, -stated that on 20/21-1-90, at about 12 in the night, while he was sleeping in his house, appellant Medo Manjhi and accused Tejo Manjhi came to the house and started awakening his son Suresh Manjhi, the deceased. They asked his son to return back the wrist watch, which he had stolen earlier. Suresh Manjhi d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 137(2007)DLT119; 2009(93)DRJ288
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two appeals by a total of three Appellants directed against the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 63/2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants were held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) for committing the murder of Laxmi and for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof for attempting to murder Radhey Shyam. Subsequently, by an order dated 15th March, 2002 all the Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of the offence of murder and to undergo imprisonment of seven years for the offence of attempt to murder. A fine was also imposed in respect of both the convictions.2. At the outset one rather disturbing feature of the case may be mentioned: the main witness for the prosecution, that is, PW-12 Radhey Shyam was examine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3325
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-2-1989. passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar convicted the appellant and Kakoo alias Sarvajeet Singh for the offences under Sections 302. 302/34,364,449,392 read with 397, IPC and S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. Appellant Resham Singh and co-accused Kakoo alias Sarvajeet Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Section 302, in the alternative, for the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC for committing the murders of Gurvendra Singh and his two servants Jatu Ram and Ram Bahadur Nepali. They were, also, tried for the offences under Sections 449, 362, 392 read with Section 397, IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that in the intervening night between 15th and 16th February, 1985, two persons, whose fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal217,1966CriLJ530
Sen, J. 1. These two revision cases have been taken up together as they arise out of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas, Shri T.K. Mutsuddi passed on 21st January 1965, in the criminal revision case No. 83 of 1966 Saday Chand Mahtab is the petitioner. He has come up before this Court for quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was committed to the Court of Session for standing his trial under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of Aroo Lama. 2. The facts on which the present applications have arisen may be stated briefly as follows : In January 1960, Maharajadhiraj Bahadur Uday Chand Mahtab of Burdwan made a gift of a portion of premises No. 10, Diamond Harbour Road with buildings thereon to his staff officer Nima Ongal Lapecha of Darjeeling. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that his son, the present petitioner did not take the gift in good grace. It transpired subsequently in Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal142,1960CriLJ329
ORDERN.K. Sen, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Shri P. N. Lahiri, Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, in a Sessions trial where the jury unanimously found the three opposite parties not guilty of the respective charges upon which they were tried. The learned Judge held that the verdict which he accepted was not against the weight of evidence. He did not, however, express himself as to whether he agreed with the verdict. 2. Opposite party No. 1 Shibraj Singh was tried on charges under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under Section 302 was for shooting Sk. Monjur to death and the other charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was for causing grievous hurt to a boy named Ranjit Pal, who is prosecution witness No. 24 in the case. The two other opposite parties were charged for abetment of the aforesaid offences. 3. The prosecution case which may be shortly narrated was as follows: There is a manufacturing concern on ...
Tag this Judgment!