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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 251

N.K.SEN, BHATTACHARYYA
LALU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.S.MUKHERJEE, SAMAR RAY CHAUDHARY, Sasthi Charan Roy, TARINI PRASAD BAGCHI

BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) FIVE appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, with the help of a Jury and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on a finding of guilty under Section 304 (II) and Section 148 I. P. C. so far as the appellant Lalu alias Baliram, alias Sewji Kurmi alias Khatik is concerned, under Section 304 (II)/149 and Section 148 I. P. C. as regards appellants Dinantb Goala and Sankar Kurmi alias Nata, and under Section 304 (11) read with Section 149 as also under Section 147 I. P. C. in regard to appellants Ramabatar Singh and Shyamlal Singh.

( 2 ) WITHOUT a Jury the learned Sessions Judge further tried the five appellants of whom Ramabatar Singh and Shyamlal Singh were acquitted and appellants Lalu and Sankar Kurmi alias Nata were convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count, the sentences running concurrently, and appellant Dinanath alias Dina was convicted under Sections 4 (a) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count, the sentences running concurrently.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case, br















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