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

2010 Supreme(All) 1946

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI
RAJOL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Anurag Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh for the Petitioners; Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent No. 1 and perused the impugned judgment and order.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. It appears that the petitioners Rajol, Chote Bhaiya and Ajai have been summoned under Section 319 CrPC to face trial in regard to the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC in S.T.No. 166/2008, State v. Vijay (Crime No. 1234/2007), police station Bangarmau, district Unnao, vide the order dated 15.5.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act) Unnao.

4. The petitioners were named in the FIR but their names were left in the charge sheet. During the trial, PW-1 Ramu @ Anil Kumar was examined, who has deposed in regard to complicity of the petitioners alongwith the charge-sheeted accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the statement of the said witness (PW-1), has passed the impugned order summoning the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded any satis

























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