S.B.SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Ram Pat – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Appellants, four in number, are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14.2.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.298-DBA of 1997, in terms whereof a judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul in case No.27 of 1993 was set aside.
2. We may, at the outset, notice that eight persons were arrayed as accused in the aforementioned case. The High Court, however, did not grant special leave in respect of accused Nos.6 to 8. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of the trial. Accused Nos.2 to 5 only are, therefore, before us.
3. The prosecution case is as under:
Daya Ram and Ram Pat, along with Rajinder, Surinder and Mukesh alias Manoj had purchased 1/36th share of the right of the owners in the land measuring 264 kanals, 12 marlas comprised of Khewat No.10, Khatauni No.69 mustkil and Killa No.24/27 and 1/48th share of 37 kanals 8 marlas of land by reason of a deed of sale dated 7.5.1993. They are said to have purchased 1/18th undivided share in the land measuring 264 kanals 12 marlas and 1/24th share of land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas t
Rame Gowda (Dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.
Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato v. State of W.B.
Surendra v. State of Maharashtra
Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand
Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P.
State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur
M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami
Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore
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.