ARIJIT PASAYAT, S. H. KAPADIA
Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The trial Court had imposed a death sentence and, therefore, made a reference for confirmation of death sentence by the High Court in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).
3. Appellant also filed an appeal and both the case under reference and the appeal were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.
4. According to the prosecution accused killed his wife-Anisha, three daughters namely, Gulfsha, Nisha and Anta @ Munni aged 9 years, 6 years and 4 years respectively and son Babu aged 2½ years. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur had found the charge for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC to have been proved and imposed the death sentence.
5. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
On 10.12.2005 at about 6 A.M. Alladeen (PW-1) submitted a written report at Police Station,
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors.
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.