SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Surendra Singh S/o Late Ganga Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
1. The sole appellant Surendra Singh has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2011 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as well as to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment of one year, additionally under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. imprisonment of three years as well as fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment of six months additionally under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order of sentence dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 571 of 2008.
2. Vijay Pratap Singh @ Sonu gave his fard-beyan at S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur on 18.01.2008 at 10.45 a.m. alleging inter-alia that he along with his brother Abhay Pratap Singh (deceased) were in a way to his house from Repura Bazar in the evening of 17.01.2008. His brother was driving the motorcycle. At about 5.00 p.m. when they reached near Banauli Bridge, he saw Surendra Singh, Annu Kumar Singh, Babloo Singh along with two unknown
Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of W.B. (2010) 12 SCC 91 : AIR 2010 SC 3638
Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166
Namdeo vs. 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.