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

2012 Supreme(All) 363

[2012(3) ADJ 31 (DB)(NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DHARNIDHAR JHA AND ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
BALI RAM ....Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 881 of 1983, decided on 6th February, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
H.N. Sharma, Braham Singh, C.S. Chaturvedi, Kapil Tyagi, P.K. Jauhari, Pankaj Dubey and R.K. Rai for the Appellant; D.G.A., G.S. Chaturvedi, P.C. Chaturvedi, P.K. Tiwari and P.K. Tewari for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 304-II—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 157—Murder—Conviction—Sustainability of—Delay in despatch of FIR—Merely suggesting delay in despatch of report may not be sufficient in it self to discard document as a collusive/fabricated—In present case no delay in dispatching FIR—Informant and other witnesses are competent persons in whose presence real part of occurence had taken place—Sudden fight which had taken place during "Hukka" smoking—No evidence to show pre-mediation—Single blow given by instrument—Further, no intention to cause death—Conviction/sentence modified.

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 157—Expression "Forthwith"—Meaning of—It means despatch of report with promptitude eliminating any chance of raising any inference—As if same could have been purposely delayed for making consultations and deliberations.

       

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