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

1975 Supreme(HP) 29

CHET RAM THAKUR
STATE OF H. P. – Appellant
Versus
S. HARBANS SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B. Sita Ram, Advocate:General, for Appellant Y. Chandana and H.K. Bhardwaj, for Respondents.

ORDER

1. This revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (shortly called the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the State for revising the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 24-6-1974. The Magistrate committed the respondents for trial under the provision of Sections 302/34 and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears, after going through the police record opined that it was not a case under Section 302, I.P.C. so as to frame a charge under that Section. According to him, the case was only one under Section 342, I.P.C. He further observed that the opinion of the medical officer was that the injuries mentioned in his report, dated 14-2-1974 could not have been possible by striking against protruding stones or rocks, etc. and they were caused by some weapon. This fact is to be established by the prosecution during the trial. It is to be determined during the trial whether the said injuries were simple injuries on grievous injuries. The offences under Sections 323, 325 and 326, I.P.C. are triable by a Magistrate and similarly the offence under Section 342, I.P.C, is also one triable by an







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