MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, HARISH KUMAR
Rajballabh Prasad @ Rajballabh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The aforesaid six appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) arise out of the same judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (Elected Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and Member of Legislative Council), Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Trial Judge”), in Special Case No. 145 of 2018 (arising out of Mahila (Nalanda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016) and therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: –
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 224 of 2019
| Appellant's name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Rajballabh Prasad @ Rajballabh Yadav (herein after referred to as the Appellant No.1) | 376 of the IPC | Life Imprisonment | 50,000/- | Six months simple imprisonment |
| 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”) | ||||
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)
H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana
Tomaso Bruno vs. State of U.P.
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple
Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana
Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana
Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Tameezuddin vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat
Mussudin Ahmad vs. State of Assam
Narendra Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Munshi Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal
Manak Chand @ Mani vs. State of Haryana
Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharastra
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh
Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh
Lillu alias Rajesh vs. State of Haryana
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
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.