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

2019 Supreme(P&H) 242

RAJIV SHARMA, KULDIP SINGH
DINESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sudhir Sharma, Adv., Ram Krishan Rana, Adv., Puja Chopra, Adv., Tapan Kumar Yadav, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid three appeals, therefore these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. These three appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 and 08.10.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2008 whereby the appellants, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section

Sentence

302/34 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

201/34 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

120-B IPC

To undergo rigo


































































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