STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MANGE RAM
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 11,2002

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
VERSUS
MANGE RAM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

TUKARAM DHONDIRAO SONAWANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI YESHWANT KHARADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-117] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-231] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-215] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
KIKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2007-8-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Y. K. Sabharwal, J. - (1.)The father, his two sons and a brother-in-law, respondents herein, were charged for causing grievous injuries to the deceased on 7th June, 1984 at 8.00 p.m. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at a hospital at Rohtak on 10th June, 1984 at 6.30 a.m.
(2.)All the four accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Sessions Judge, Rohtak acquitted all the four accused for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC. They were, however, found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 326/34, IPC. All were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 326/34, IPC and five years for offence under Section 325/34, IPC.
(3.)The aforesaid conviction and sentence was challenged by the prosecution as well as the respondents by filing appeals in the High Court - the State contending that the respondents were liable to be convicted for offence under Section 302/34, IPC and the respondents contending that they were wrongly convicted for the offences as aforesaid and deserved to be acquitted. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal of the respondents, acquitted them altogether and resultantly the State appeal was dismissed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.