IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJNISH KUMAR, RAJEEV SINGH
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
(1) The instant Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 arises out of the reference made by the trial Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence of convict Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit (here-in-after referred as convict/appellant) awarded by means of judgment and order dated 30.09.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 399 of 2020 (C.N.R. No. UPLK01-003380 2020): State Vs. Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit, arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of 2020, under Sections 376 (Ka) (Kha), 364, 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act, 2012’), Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.
(2) Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2021 has been preferred by convict Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.09.2021. Jail Appeal No. 1579 of 2021 was also preferred on behalf of convict Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit against the aforesaid judgment and order,
Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala
Ishwar Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Anjan Kumar Sarma and others Vs. State of Assam
Harendra Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar
Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam
Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another vs. State of Maharashtra
C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.