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

1970 Supreme(SC) 265

A.N.RAY, I.D.DUA
Budhsen – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Judgment

DUA, J.:- These two appeals by special leave arise out of a joint trial of the present appellants and Jagdish and Sugriv. All the four accused were convicted by the trial Court; the present appellants were sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. They challenged their conviction by separate appeals to the Allahabad High Court. By means of a common judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants (Crl. App. No. 2623 of 1968) and allowed that of their co-accused Jagdish and Sugriv (Crl. App. No. 2648 of 1968). The sentence of death imposed on the present appellants under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of Lala Hazarilal was confirmed.

2. According to the prosecution story Jagdish and Sugriv related to each other as cousins belonged to village Bidrika. They used to harass the poor inhabitants of that village whereas deceased Hazarilal used to espouse their cause. As a result, there was not much love lost between Jagdish and Sugriv on the one side and Hazarilal on the other. Some years ago Jagdish, along w















































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