NAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CHHATTISGARH)
Decided on
October 31,2014
NAND KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BALADIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]MASALTI MUNGA RAM BHAGWATI CHANDAN SINALI LAXMI PRASAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR KAUR DALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI PRASHAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS KAUR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ANOOP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-370] [REFERRED]SAKHARAM GUNAJI CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHILARI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-172] [REFERRED]
RANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-401] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANTA KUMAR PATEL VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GANGARAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-269] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL SAHU VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHEY ALAM VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM TIRATH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
DURAB VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-318] [REFERRED]
NEPAL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-173] [REFERRED TO]
LALA RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
LAL JEET AND TEJ BAHADUR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
DULA HEMBRAM VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
BHURA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-263] [REFERRED TO]
PARSHURAM AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. -
(1.)THESE appeals have been directed against the final common judgment dated 11.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 785, 866, 762, 868, 761, 853, 875, 970, 851, 873 and
842 of 2001, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants herein under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") which was awarded to them by
the Sessions Court whereas the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals of
other accused and acquitted them of the charges by setting aside the
judgment of the Sessions Court dated 12.07.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 342
of 1995 to that extent.
(2.)THE concluding part of the impugned judgment of the High Court reads as under:
"In the result, the appeals filed by accused Raj Kumar Singh, Dhananjay, Rohit, Nirmal, Surjan, Santosh Singh, Gopal Das, Chhatram, Balchand and Devilal succeeds. Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges.
a. Balchand, Devilal, Chhatram and Surjan are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not surrender to their bail bonds.
b. Santosh Singh, Rohit, Gopal Das, Raj Kumar Singh, Nirmal and Dhananjay are in detention since 18 -1 -1995. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal filed by accused Rameshwar Singh stands abated. The appeals filed by accused Kumar Singh, Nande Singh, Nand Kumar, Baran, Jaipal, Resham Lal, Guharam, Amritlal and Basant Das are dismissed. Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are maintained. Baran, Jaipal and Resham Lal are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence."
(3.)THE question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of the present appellants.
In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary to state the prosecution case in brief infra.
(2.)THE concluding part of the impugned judgment of the High Court reads as under:
"In the result, the appeals filed by accused Raj Kumar Singh, Dhananjay, Rohit, Nirmal, Surjan, Santosh Singh, Gopal Das, Chhatram, Balchand and Devilal succeeds. Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges.
a. Balchand, Devilal, Chhatram and Surjan are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not surrender to their bail bonds.
b. Santosh Singh, Rohit, Gopal Das, Raj Kumar Singh, Nirmal and Dhananjay are in detention since 18 -1 -1995. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal filed by accused Rameshwar Singh stands abated. The appeals filed by accused Kumar Singh, Nande Singh, Nand Kumar, Baran, Jaipal, Resham Lal, Guharam, Amritlal and Basant Das are dismissed. Conviction and sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC are maintained. Baran, Jaipal and Resham Lal are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they are directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence."
(3.)THE question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of the present appellants.
In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, it is necessary to state the prosecution case in brief infra.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.