Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI., K.N. SINGH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Yadav Lohar and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 1979, D/- 30-8-1990.
JUDGMENT
The three appellants in the present appeal were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur for offences under Ss. 302/149, 307/149 and 147 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively. The conviction and the sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge was upheld by the High Courts order dated 6th April, 1978. The appellants challenged the correctness of the conviction by means of this appeal.
2. Appellant No. 2, Prem Chand Lohar, died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Thus the present appeal is confined to Yadav Lohar, appellant No. 1, and Khiroda Loharin, appellant No. 3.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court both have recorded findings that appellants 1 and 3 were not armed with any weapons. There is further no finding that any of the two appellants committed any overt act in commission of the offences. They were merely present in a crowd of 50 to 60 persons when the fight took place and as a result of which they have been convicted by both the Courts with the aid of Ss. 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Having gone through the evidence on record, we do not find that any case has been made out against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants presence and participation in the commission of the offences for which they have been convicted is highly doubtful.
3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 2255
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
