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

2004 Supreme(MP) 732

S.S.JHA, A.K.GOHIL
Ramniwas – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
V.K. Saxena with Mayank Bajpai and N.P. Dwivedi for appellants;
M.P.S. Bhadoria, Public Prosecutor for State.

ORDER

Jha, J. -- 1. The judgment of this appeal shall also govern the judgment in Cr.A. 399/96, as both the appeals arise out of same judgment of sentence and conviction.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants against their conviction for an offence under section 302, 302/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC and under section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act by the Court of S.I. Shah, III Additional Sessions Judge, Morena.

3. Appellant Harishankar is convicted for an offence under section 302, IPC read with section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Suresh is convicted for an offence under section 302/34, 307, IPC and section 4 of Explosive Substances Act; Ramniwas is convicted for an offence under section 302/34, IPC. Appellant Ramniwas filed Cr.A. 352/96, whereas other appeal Cr.A. 399/96 has been filed by Harishankar and Suresh.

4. According to prosecution, deceased Vinod Kumar was resident of Tamardhari Ganj, Morena. Rajendra, brother of the deceased Vinod, had sold his shop on 23.9.1986 to appellant Suresh, however balance of consideration Rs. 6,000/- was due against Suresh. In the afternoon of the date of incident, Rajendra had demanded balance amount of consideration from Suresh. There we























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