Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Ghanshyam Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations and reasoning (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 4. ratio decidendi of the case (Para 58 , 59) |
| 5. final conclusion and order (Para 60) |
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastav, J. - This common judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal appeal No.483 of 2011 filed by appellant -arvind alias Lalla. Since the factual matrix in both the criminal appeals is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are heard simultaneously.
(2) Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29-03-2011 passed by Special Judge & additional Sessions Judge, Datia (MP) in Sessions Trial No.123 of 2006, both Criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred, by which appellants have been sentenced and convicted
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
