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

2011 Supreme(SC) 454

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD
Zahoor – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Naresh Bakshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Pradeep Misra, Advocate.

Judgment :

In this appeal for the reasons mentioned hereunder, no detailed facts are necessary.

Suffice it to say that the appellants before us Zahoor, Subrati and Babu were brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for having committed the

murder of Mahipal Singh @ Puttan on the 18th May, 1979. The Trial court convicted them under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court has by the impugned judgment held that the appellants were liable to conviction under Section 304 (I) of the IPC read with Section 34 as the matter related to a sudden quarrel without premeditation and that a fine of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice. The matter is before us after the grant of special leave at the instance of the accused. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to interfere with the conviction ecorded by the High Court in so far as the appellant-Babu is concerned. However, in the light of the fact that the other two appellants i.e. Zahoor and Subrati have been brought in with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, their conviction and sentence cannot be maintained as the vicarious liability under Sect

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