BALWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
August 26,2014
BALWAN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JAI RAM SHARMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-10] [REFERRED TO]MANSHA RAM VERMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-141] [REFERRED TO]
NAVJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
K.PRABHU NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT ; DINESH @ DEENU & ANR; CHAND KIRAN VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI GOTTAM VEERANNA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-91] [REFERRED TO]
THENAI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
RACHHPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN VIKRAM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
SADAN YADAV VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-254] [REFERRED TO]
AWADESH KUMAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAWESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 27.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.486-DB of 2004 and Criminal Appeal no.547-DB of 2004.
(3.)The appellants herein are six in numbers and were tried along with others for the charges under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 323 and 216 of Indian Penal Code and in addition under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against appellant Naresh and the Trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 449 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and found them guilty for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. In addition appellant Naresh was found guilty for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default sentence. The Trial Court directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused preferred appeals in Criminal Appeal no.486-DB of 2004 and Criminal Appeal no.547-DB of 2004 and the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by accused Subhash and acquitted him of the charges. The appeals preferred by the other accused were dismissed. Aggrieved by the confirmation of their conviction and sentence six accused have preferred the present appeals.
(2.)These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 27.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.486-DB of 2004 and Criminal Appeal no.547-DB of 2004.
(3.)The appellants herein are six in numbers and were tried along with others for the charges under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 323 and 216 of Indian Penal Code and in addition under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against appellant Naresh and the Trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 449 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each with default sentence; further found them guilty for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and found them guilty for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. In addition appellant Naresh was found guilty for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default sentence. The Trial Court directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused preferred appeals in Criminal Appeal no.486-DB of 2004 and Criminal Appeal no.547-DB of 2004 and the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by accused Subhash and acquitted him of the charges. The appeals preferred by the other accused were dismissed. Aggrieved by the confirmation of their conviction and sentence six accused have preferred the present appeals.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.