NIRMAL PASI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 18,2002
NIRMAL PASI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
TEJPAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-78] [REFERRED TO]ABID BEIG VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHERU LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
TATA RAVI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER @ PAPPU AND ORS VS. STATE AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-618] [REFERRED]
GUNJAN SINHA JAIN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
NASIB OSMAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ PAL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAS ORAON @ TEHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
DUGU MANJHI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ATTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-122] [REFERRED TO]
SARJU DUSADH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JHA @ LALTU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-129] [REFERRED]
VED PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA ZALU SAHARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTEY SHAH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
SALIM BABUKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Nirmal Baheliya alias Nirmal Pasi and sona Pasi, the two accused-appellants, have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 395 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the additional sessions judge-ll, jehanabad. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been maintained by the High Court. The accused-appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.
(2.)Here itself it may be stated that one krishna Choudhary was also tried as co- accused with the two accused-appellants on the same charge and was convicted. His appeal before the High Court also failed. However, he has not pursued the matter before this Court.
(3.)The fact that there was a dacoity which took place on 5.3.1989, at about 6 p. m. , at Baidrabad Bazar within Arwal police station of district Jehanabad is not disputed by the learned amicus appearing for the accused-appellants. However, he has seriously disputed the involvement of the accused-appellants in the incident. In his submissions there is no reliable evidence available on record to hold that the accused-appellants had participated in the incident.
(2.)Here itself it may be stated that one krishna Choudhary was also tried as co- accused with the two accused-appellants on the same charge and was convicted. His appeal before the High Court also failed. However, he has not pursued the matter before this Court.
(3.)The fact that there was a dacoity which took place on 5.3.1989, at about 6 p. m. , at Baidrabad Bazar within Arwal police station of district Jehanabad is not disputed by the learned amicus appearing for the accused-appellants. However, he has seriously disputed the involvement of the accused-appellants in the incident. In his submissions there is no reliable evidence available on record to hold that the accused-appellants had participated in the incident.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.