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

1989 Supreme(SC) 141

A.M.AHMADI, S.NATARAJAN
Surinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, JITENDRA, M.L.Verma, S.Baggar, S.K.Bagga, TARA CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. :— The appellant, having been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. Chandigarh under S. 302, IPC, and his appeal against conviction having been dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has preferred this appeal by special leave. The conviction of the appellant is principally based on the ocular evidence of PW 2 Kesho Gupta and PW 4 Varinder Singh. The facts emerging from the evidence of these two main witnesses coupled with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses may be stated as follows :

PW 5 Mangal Dass was the owner of House No. 3220 in Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. The ground floor was occupied by Mangal Dass himself while the first floor consisting of four rooms and a kitchen was tenanted; two rooms and a kitchen were rented to PW 4 while the other two rooms were occupied by Sikander Lal, the father of the appellant and Amrit Lal (the acquitted accused). PW 2 Kesho and his brother Nitya Nand (deceased) belonged to village Narnaul to which PW 4 also belonged. They had come to Chandigath a couple of years back and were sharing the accommodation with PW 4. As Amrit Lals marriage was scheduled










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