KUNWARPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: UTTARAKHAND)
Decided on
December 09,2014
Kunwarpal
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SURESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-19] [REFERRED TO]SURESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH YADAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH YADAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-12-180] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-12-180] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PRADHAN, S/O LATE LALL BAHADUR PRADHAN VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-8-5] [REFERRED]
GOPAL PRADHAN, S/O LATE LALL BAHADUR PRADHAN VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-8-5] [REFERRED]
RAMBABU VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-251] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBABU VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-251] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALKRISHNA SONI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-12-128] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALKRISHNA SONI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-12-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEWAK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEWAK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001.
(2.)Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal. During the hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellant No.4 Atara Singh died during pendency of the appeal and it was endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. Hence the appeal stands abated insofar as he is concerned.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows: PW1 Gajendra is the son of deceased Ranjit Singh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Accused No.4 is their cousin. PW1 Gajendra owned plot No.180 in village Mohammadpur Panda and the adjacent plot belonged to the accused persons and on account of the pending litigation between them there was enmity.
(2.)Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal. During the hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellant No.4 Atara Singh died during pendency of the appeal and it was endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. Hence the appeal stands abated insofar as he is concerned.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is as follows: PW1 Gajendra is the son of deceased Ranjit Singh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers. Accused No.4 is their cousin. PW1 Gajendra owned plot No.180 in village Mohammadpur Panda and the adjacent plot belonged to the accused persons and on account of the pending litigation between them there was enmity.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.