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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 175

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AMULYA KUMAR NANDI
DESBO ALIAS NIRMALA NASKAR ALIAS NIRMALMOY NASKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

A. M. Bhattacharjee, J.: - After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and examining the records ourselves, we have not been able to discover any infirmity in the Order of conviction, passed by the trial Judge and affirmed in appeal, to warrant our interference in revision. But for the reasons stated hereunder we propose to alter the sentence.

2. The accused, convicted u /S. 307 of the Penal Code, has been sentenced to imprisonment for five years. The victim of the offence is now dead and before us in this Court, the heirs of the victim of the offence have filed an application praying that the parties may be granted permission to compound the offence and the accused-petitioner may be acquitted. As provided in S. 320(4)(b) of the Criminal P. C. when the person who would otherwise be competent to compound the offence is dead, his legal representatives may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence. But the offence u/S. 307 of the Penal Code, not being compoundable u/S. 320 or any other provision of the Criminal P. C., the victim himself, if alive, could not be permitted to compound the offence and, therefore, could transmit no right to his h












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