Back
MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL
Sham Sundar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
Key Points: - The court relied on admissibility of fingerprint evidence and identification of recovered ornaments to establish guilt. (!) (!) - Delay in sending specimen palm impressions was considered inconsequential to the case. (!) - The case rests on circumstantial evidence and forensic reports linking appellants to the crime, including recoveries identified by the complainant. (!) (!) (!)
Pritam Pal, J.
1. The aforementioned two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8-11 -1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby appellant Sham Sunder was convicted under Sections 302/452/411 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Yogesh Kumar was convicted only under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced as under:-
-
Appellant-Sham Sunder :-
- To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 302, IPC. To undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 452, IPC. Imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 411. All the sentences awarded to run concurrently. Appellant-- Yogesh Kumar : To undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 411, IPC. Since both these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal in case FIR No. 170 dated 23-3-1995, Police Station City, Karnal, therefore, they are being disposed of b
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
