Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(SC) 500

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 500

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA. M. TRIVEDI
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Singh, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Kaustubh Anshuraj, AOR Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG(MP) Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Karan Vishnoi, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv. Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Adv. Himanshi Goel, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv.

Table of Content
1. establishment of initial facts and crime scene evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. judicial findings confirming trial court verdict. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments contesting evidence against the accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. assessment of evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 51 , 68 , 82)
5. final sentencing considerations and decision. (Para 224 , 225 , 227)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

2. The appellants (Manoj, Rahul @ Govind and Neha Verma, hereafter referred by their names) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (three counts) for committing the murder, during the course of robbery, of Megha Deshpande, Ashlesha Deshpande and Smt. Rohini Phadke on 19.06.2011. All three appellants were sentenced to capital punishment with fine of Rs.1000/- on each count, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment (RI) on each count. Under Section 397 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI. Under Section 449 IPC, they w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 500

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA. M. TRIVEDIManoj – AppellantVersusState of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA. M. TRIVEDI
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent