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

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, , ,
ALAMELU – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent


Advocates:
R. AYYAM PERUMALS. THANANJAYAN

REPORTABL

E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2009

Alamelu & Anr. .. Appellants

VERSUS

State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1063 OF 2009

Sekar & Anr.

.. Appellants

VERSUS

State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2009

Rangasamy & Anr. .. Appellants

VERSUS

State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1.

These three appeals are directed against the common

judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras

1

dated 6th February, 2008 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 406

and 414 of 2000 confirming the common judgment

passed in S.C. No. 255 of 1997 by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 28th April, 2000

whereby the trial court had convicted and sentenced the

appellants as under:-

The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2009 had

been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 read with

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