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

1997 Supreme(SC) 748

G.B.PATTANAIK, G.N.RAY
D. V. Shanmisoham – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The prosecution is obliged to explain grievous injuries on an accused when independent evidence clearly supports the prosecution, else conviction can be reversed. [Para 1][Para 9] - Where eye-witnesses are related/interested, non-explanation of grievous injuries on an accused by the prosecution can cast doubt on the prosecution's version and affect credibility. [Para 8][Para 7] - Court may exercise Article 136 of the Constitution to re-evaluate evidence if its appreciation below appears erroneous and may set aside or modify convictions accordingly; non-explanation of injuries can lead to benefit of doubt or acquittal for the grievous-injury accused, depending on the case. [Para 9][Para 11]

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 15th April, 1994 in Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 1993 arising out of Sessions Case No. 251 of 1991. The two appellants alongwith three others stood charged of having committed several offences and were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati and by judgment dated 9th July, 1993 all of them were convicted under different sections of the Penal Code. All of them except A-2 were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year, under Section 307/149 they were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and under Section 324/149 were sentenced to imprisonment for one year, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. A-2 was convicted under Section 302 for causing murder of Mohan and Sekhar and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, convicted under Section 307 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default imprisonment for 2 months, convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of














































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