K. RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
November 28,2014
K. Ravi Kumar
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SURINDER KUMAR VS. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]MAHESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GHAPOO YADAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
EX. CT. VIJAY PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-154] [REFERRED TO]DILIP DEBNATH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAYAN @ GUDDU UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-370] [REFERRED]
VIRENDRA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
AVDESH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
NANDAKUMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-200] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR ZAMAL SEIKH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-11-185] [REFERRED TO]
ALAMSINGH S/O MISHRILAL BAGARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
EKADASHI NAYAK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU BALDEV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2023-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
RUKIA BEGAM VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RAM NATH CHOUDHARY [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
DIL BAHADUR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK SINGH AND NAGENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
GURAI BHAKTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE AWASTHI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMHAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
MONU SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-371] [REFERRED]
GYARSIBAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KUMAR MEWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
VAJIA @ VAJE RAM S/O GOTIYA @ GOUTAM, AGED 38 YEARS, BY CASTE ADIVASI, RESIDENT OF BILDI, P.S. SUHAGPURA, DISTRICT PRATAPGARH (RAJ.) (PRESENTLY LODGED IN CENTRAL JAIL, UDAIPUR) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRATAP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-205] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-230] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
FEROZ VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-141] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMRAJ GANPAT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUTHA RAM S/O VASTARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM S/O SH. NAR SINGH RAM, BY CASTE MEGHWAL, RESIDENT OF BHANWARI, P.S. ROHAT, DISTRICT PALI. (AT PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL JAIL, JODHPUR.) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
GIRI RAJ KISHORE AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-252] [REFERRED]
RAM RATAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-172] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-165] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH @ GOCHE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
ZIAUL HAQUE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
BIDHAN SARDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Criminal Appeal No. 689/2006 filed by the appellant herein arising out of judgment and order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 306/2004 has been dismissed thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded to him. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two months. Substantive sentence for both the offences are directed to run concurrently.
(3.)The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted has been set out in detail by the trial Court as also the High Court in the orders passed by them. Therefore, we need not recapitulate the same all over again except to the extent it is necessary to do so for the disposal of this appeal.
(2.)This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Criminal Appeal No. 689/2006 filed by the appellant herein arising out of judgment and order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 306/2004 has been dismissed thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded to him. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two months. Substantive sentence for both the offences are directed to run concurrently.
(3.)The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted has been set out in detail by the trial Court as also the High Court in the orders passed by them. Therefore, we need not recapitulate the same all over again except to the extent it is necessary to do so for the disposal of this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.