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

2003 Supreme(SC) 1095

N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH
Lal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The four appellants in this appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2001) by special leave were tried by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1981 and by judgment and order dated 10th December, 1990 they were found guilty and convicted of the offences under sections 394 and 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively. On appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 2240 of 1990, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirmed their conviction under section 394 IPC but set aside their conviction and sentence under section 411 IPC since they had been found guilty and convicted of the principal offence under section 394 IPC.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh has also preferred Special Leave Petition and Crl. M.P. No. 7792 of 2002 against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the appellants of the charge under section 411 IPC.

3. It may be noticed at the threshold that apart from the appellants one Ram Swaroop was also tried by the learned Special Judge charged of the offence under section 120 B IPC. Hukam Singh was additionally charged under section 397 IPC. H













































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