J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Zainul – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
| I. | CASE OF THE PROSECUTION |
| a. | Oral Evidence on Record |
| b. | Judgment of the Trial Court |
| II. | IMPUGNED JUDGMENT |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT |
| IV. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE |
| V. | ANALYSIS |
| A. | Interpretation of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code |
| a. | Innocent Bystander v/s Member of an Unlawful Assembly |
| i. | Rule of Prudence in Convicting Members of an Unlawful Assembly |
| b. | Principles of Law relating to Appreciation of Evidence of the Witnesses 58 |
| i. | Conflict between the Ocular Version and the Medical Evidence |
| c. | Whether the Prosecution could be said to have proved its case Beyond Reasonable Doubt? |
| B. | Whether the Statement of the PW-20 could have been treated as an FIR? |
| VI. | CONCLUSION |
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the appellants are co-convicts and the challenge is also to the self- same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and ord
Shyam Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Subal Ghorai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal
Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra
Ranvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala
Bikau Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar
Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab
Muthu Naicker v. State of T.N.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
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.