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

1986 Supreme(SC) 367

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
Laxman Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent


Judgment

ORDER :- We have, with the above assistance of Shri M. Qamaruddin, learned Counsel for the appellant have gone through the judgment of the High Court. The High Court on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced in the case has come to a definite conclusion that the appellant was guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the High Court that the head injury No. 1 was the cause of the death of deceased cannot be sustained inasmuch as the death has been caused due to the cumulative effect of six other injuries on the person of the deceased. It was also contended in this connection by the learned counsel that the evidence of Dr. Jagadananda Negi, P. W. 9 who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased to the effect that injury No. 1 was fatal should not be accepted. We are afraid that we cannot accept this contention put forth by the learned counsel. It is evident from the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Jagadananda Negi who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased that the injury No. 1 was fatal; there was effusion 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