DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Hansraj – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked by the petitioner, who is a murder convict. As per the custody certificate issued on 14th August, 2025, the petitioner is in custody for a period of 3 years 10 months 28 days. Relief that is claimed in this writ petition reads as follows:
2. Incidents having a bearing on our decision are summarised hereunder:
b. It was alleged in a First Information Report [FIR] registered under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC], that the petitioner along with 5 others had assaulted the f
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand
Satya Deo @ Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
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.