Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GAJENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. demolition of property incurs legal responsibilities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for revision petition are contested. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. evidence is credible despite minor inconsistencies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. convictions upheld with modified sentencing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in S.C.No.1311/2001 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. They stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 451 and 436 IPC r/w Section 149 before that court and they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under , 147, 451 and 435 r/w .
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence thus passed, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 preferred Criminal Appeal No.243/2006 before the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. The said court vide judgment dated 07.06.2016 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
On 13.11.1997 at about 1.00 am, the accused 8 in number trespassed into the thatched house of PW1 and PW2 bearing Door No.VP VI/1254, situated in Vellarada Village and demolished
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
