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

2010 Supreme(SC) 754

J.M.PANCHAL, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
G. Parshwanath – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:J.S. Attri, Dr. N.N. Ghatate, Sr. Advocates, Rajesh Mahale, A. Rohan Singh, Aditya, Sanjay R. Hegde, Avijit Roy, Keshav Roy Choudhary (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Gopal Singh, Chander Kumar, Niraj Jha. D.K. Thakur, Subhash Kaushik, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi Imam, Mohd. P. Dabas, T. Ahmed, G. Prakash, B. Anand, P.v. Dinesh, M.P. Singh, C.D. Singh, K.H. Nobin Singh, Kuldip Singh, K.K. Pandey, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Amarjeet Singh, S. Thananjayan, Ms. Promila, Harish Kr. R. Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, S. J. Aristotle, P. Ramasubramanin, Rituraj Biswas, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, A. P. Mayee, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Atul Jha, D.K. Sinha, Milind Kr., R. Gopalkrishnan, Aruneshwar Gupta, Ranjan Mukherjee, Gopal Prasad, Ratan K. Chaudhary, Abhay Prakash Sahay, J. K. Bhatia, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. H. Wahi, K. N. Gupta, Naresh K. Sharma, Himinder Lal, Prashant, J. R. Das, G.V. Rao, Kamlendra Mishra, Praveen Swarup, D.S. Mehra, P.V. Dinesh, Ramesh Babu M.R., Subramonium Prasad, C.D. Singh, Ms. Vibha Datta Mahija, Atul Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Manish Kumar Saran, Advocates.

Judgment :-

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

The instant appeal questions legality of judgment dated December 17, 2004, rendered by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2003 by which judgment dated September 1, 2003 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary in S.C. No. 91/93 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-in default RI for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as well as RI for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default RI for two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, is confirmed.

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under :- Deceased Chethana was daughter of Jwalnaiah and Smt. Radhamma. The parents of the deceased were residents of Bangalore. Marriage of deceased Chethana took place with the appellant in the year 1987. After marriage the deceased started residing at Bellary because the appellant and his family were residents of Bellary. In the year 1988 the deceased gave birth to a male child, who was named Mahaveer. Initially the relations between the appellant and the deceased wer




















































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