Back
SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Kannaiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
What is the effect of suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and shifting of the place of the incident on the substratum of the prosecution case? What is the correct approach when eyewitness testimony is contradictory or unreliable in a case involving rival political factions? What are the circumstances under which the Court should extend the benefit of doubt to accused persons under Article 142 of the Constitution?
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The accused-appellant herein has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 9th April, 2009, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’.] in Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 1999 whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and three co-accused persons under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short, “CrPC”.].
3. By way of the aforesaid appeal, the four convicts including the accused-appellant herein had assailed the judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh3[Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.] in Sessions Case No. 524 of 1990, convicting the accused- appellant and three others namely Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604[For short, “IPC”.] and Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
4. It needs to be noted that only the accused- appellant ha
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
