SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Om Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. (Now State Of Uttarakhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present set of Appeals is directed against the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [“IPC”].
2. In the present set of Appeals, Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2011 is filed by appellants – Om Pal, Narendra and Ranvir; Criminal Appeal No.1613 of 2011 is filed by Dharamvir; and Criminal Appeal No.1614 of 2011 was filed by Inchha Ram, who has passed away during the pendency of the present Appeals. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.1614 of 2011 preferred by Inchha Ram stands abated and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as such.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In the present case, two sets of First Information Reports2 [“FIR”] were lodged with regard to the same incident which took place on 19.05.1988.
THE FIRST FIR
4. FIR No.65 dated 20.05.1988 was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC from the side of the appellants stating that one Molhar along with his brother Kantu and his sons, Narendra, Om Pal, Inchha, Ranvir and Pardeep were cutting sugar cane and
Vadla Chandraiah vs. State of A.P.
Sandhya Jadhav (Smt.) vs. State of Maharashtra
Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of A.P.
Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mekala Sivaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra
Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana
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.