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

1997 Supreme(MP) 679

TEJ SHANKAR
SUKHLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.K.JAIN, Sanjay Gupta

TEJ SHANKAR, J.

( 1 ) ACCUSED Sukhalal and Gyansingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 158/92), Amolsingh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 165/92) and Hanumantsingh and Govindsingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 186/92) have been convicted and sentenced under Section 399, I. P. C. to a term of 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine another term of 11/2 year was awarded and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of 3 years R. I. and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine another terms of one year R. I. was awarded and appellants Amolsingh, Hanumantsingh, Sukhlal and Gyansingh were further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act to a term of one year by Shri G. N. Goyal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, district Shivpuri, by order dated 8-7- 1992. Out of these persons accused Gyansingh has died and his appeal has abated, vide order dateds 13-10-1995.

( 2 ) THE prosecution stroy leading to the conviction of the appellants as unfolded from the material on record is that PW 7 R. V. Sharma, the then officer-in-charge P. S. Khaniadhana got an infomation from an informant on 21-










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