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

1992 Supreme(Raj) 194

MOHINI KAPUR
Ballu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
T.P. Sharma, for Petitioner S.R. Yadav, Public Prosecutor for State Rathore, for Non-petitioners.

KAPUR, J. —An incident occurred on 21.8.1989, cross complaints were lodged. In the complaint of the present petitioner challan was filed and the learned Magistrate after considering the matter found that offence under section 307 IPC was also made out. As it was triable by the court of Sessions it was committed to Sessions.

2. The learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur (Sessions Judge) heard the parties on the question of charge and held that no offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was made out therefore the case was sent to the CJM with the direction to frame charges for offences under sections 147,323, 325, 149 read with section 323 and 325 IPC. Against this order dated 9.7.1990 the complainant has preferred this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is fracture in the left frontal temporal region due to the head injury of Shriram and the doctor has given opinion that the injury is grievous and likely to cause death. On the basis of this report and also on the basis of the circumstances in which the incident took place it has been contended that charge under section 307 IPC ought to have been framed.

4. The lear





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