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

2016 Supreme(P&H) 999

T.P.S.MANN, RAMENDRA JAIN
Rajnish – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Applicant/Appellant:Mr. Lokesh K. Malik, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Additional A.G., Haryana

JUDGMENT

1. Prayer made in the application filed by applicant- Rajnish is for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment.

2. The applicant stands convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. He is also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though according to the prosecution, the applicant had fired at complainant-Sachin yet PW5 Dr. Lalit Chopra, Medical Officer did not notice any fire arm injury during his medico-legal examination. Only multiple pin head size red colour bruises were found present over the face involving the forehead, both the maxillary areas of the face, nose and chin. It is further submitted that at the trial of the case, complainant-Sachin, who was examined as PW1 as well as the two eye-witnesses, namely, PW2 Deepak and PW3 Shivam did not support the prosecution case. All of them were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Despite the same, no incriminating material could be brought on record by the prosecution to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime. It is also submitt




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