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

2010 Supreme(All) 886

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
PATI RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Tej Pal, Sudhir Bharti, Amicus Curiae for the Appellants; A.G.A. for the Opposite Party.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Amicus Curiae Shri Sudhir Bharti appearing for the appellants and AGA for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.2.1979 passed by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 118 of 1978 (State v. Pati Ram and others), whereby the appellants Pati Ram and Ram Swarup have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years under Section 304, IPC read with Section 34, I.P.C.

3. Lower Court record has been burnt in the fire, which broke out in Bareilly judgeship in the intervening night of 18/19-11-1979. Hence, the case of the prosecution is being mentioned from the certified copy of the impugned judgement, which has been filed in this appeal.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Kundan Lal is the uncle of the accused and witnesses Shiv Singh and Behari Lal are his Khandani. All these persons live in the same house though their residential portions are separate from each other. The complainant had three sons and Baboo Ram deceased was his second son. The complainant Kundan Lal purchased mango crop of a grove during the days of occurrence and















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