Back
1997(10) Supreme 612
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. Nanavati, B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Rajinder Singh & Another -Appellants
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1989
With
Writ Petition No. 543 of 1992
Decided on 25-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, M.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for S.K. Verma, Advocate, D.K. Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent, G.B. Sathe, Advocate for A.K. Jha, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-Crl. Misc. Petition 6233/83 and Crl.M.P....... (application for discharging the advocate from the matter) are dismissed.
2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 78/79 are challenging their conviction and the order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, East Chambaran, Motihari in S.T. No. 138/69 of 1978/81 and confirmed by the High Court. Writ Petition No. 543/92 is filed by accused Ramayan Singh whose S.L.P. was earlier dismissed by this Court.
3. The appellants have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of 2 eye witnesses P.W. 2 Amila Devi and P.W. 3 Bhagwani Devi. Both these witnesses have been believed by the trial Court and also by the High Court. No good reason is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for taking a different view as regards the credibility of these 2 witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in their evidence. Merely because they happened to be sister and mother respectively of the deceased their evidence cannot be discarded. In absence of any infirmity either in the appreciation of their evidence or in the reasons given by the courts below we see no reason to interfere in this appeal and the Writ Petition. Both are, therefore, dismissed. The appellants in criminal appeal are directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
Appeal dismissed.
*********
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
