SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1665

G.N.RAY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-The convictions of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and for offence punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) and consequential sentences of imprisonment for life and the fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for five months for offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years together with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 5 of TADA passed in Sessions Trial No. 189/92 by the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Panipat have been impugned in this appeal by the convicted accused Jagdish.

2. According to the prosecution case, at the instance of co-accused Ranbir Singh who died during the pendency of the trial and at the behest of co-accused Chaudhary Ram, the appellant Jagdish caused the murder of Pritam Lal Chopra on May 3, 1992 by firing at him from a pistol. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 5 of TADA and the said deceased accused Ranbir Singh and the co-accused C
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top