SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Upendra Paswan Son of Sukhdeo Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. During midst of pendency of instant appeal two interlocutory applications, one bearing I.A. No.898 of 2016 and the other I.A. No.2089 of 2016 have been filed on behalf of informant.
3. Basing its plea over principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015(1) PLJR 104 (SC), a prayer has been made on behalf of informant in accordance with Section 357, 357-A of the Cr.P.C. by way of filing I.A. No.898 of 2016 asking for interim compensation for her rehabilitation. I.A. no.2089 of 2016 has been filed in terms of Article 141, 144, 251 of the Constitution of India to direct the subordinate courts to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 357 as well as 357A, invariably so that victim of the crime could get compensation under victim compensation scheme as well as for proper implementation thereof and for that, a general direction should be issued in the background of decision having been laid down by the Kerala High Court in Sabu E.K. and another Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2016 Cr.L.J. 3418.
4. As the
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India
Mohd. Haroon v. Union of India
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
Railway Board v. Chandrima Das
Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.
Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak
State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat
State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar
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.