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

1996 Supreme(Bom) 470

VISHNU SAHAI, S.S.PARKAR
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Balram @ Nam Amarsingh Talwar – Respondent


JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---By means of this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. the State of Maharashtra (appellant) seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 13-8-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1981, acquitting the respondent for offences under section 302 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C.; the latter on two separate counts, one for causing injuries to Parvati Govindraj, P.W. 4 and the other for inflicting injuries on Kanamma Aarumugam, P.W. 7.

2.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---

The informant Parvati Govindraj P.W. 4, is the wife of the deceased Govindraj. Kanamma Aarumugam P.W. 7, is the mother of Parvati. Tangamani Katmuttu P.W. 6 being the real brother of the deceased Govindraj, is the brother-in-law of Parvati. Parvati, Kanamma and Tangamani along with the deceased Govindraj lived in a hut in front of B.M.C. (Bombay Municipal Corporation) Building No. 20, Opposite Post Office, Sion Koliwada, Bombay. The respondent who was alleged to be running a matka den and conducting business of selling illicit liquor was said to be living a couple of huts away from Parvati's hut.

From the evidence, it appea




















































































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