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

1997 Supreme(SC) 1299

Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Thirteen person were arrainged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur for rioting, murder and other cognate offences. On conclusion of the trial the trial Judge convicted four of them. (A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13) under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and the other nine under Section 304 (Part II)/34, I.P.C. Besides two of them (A-5 and A-10) were convicted under Section 325/34, I.P.C. and eight others under Section 323/34, I.P.C. In appeals preferred by them the High Court acquitted two of them (A-5 and A-10) while maintaining the convictions and sentences of the others. Assailing the judgment of the High Court the convicts filed two special leave petitions in this Court, one of which was filed by A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13 and the other by the seven other convicts. While refusing leave to the former group of convicts this Court granted leave to appeal to the latter.

In distinguishing the case of the seven appellants from that of other four convicts regarding the common charge framed against them under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Sankonda Birajdar, the trial Court observed that though the appellants did not participate in the murder and were only presen


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