STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BADRI YADAV
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 31,2006
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
BADRI YADAV
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
GAURAV SONKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SON OF SHRI DAMODAR SONKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE POLICE STATION [LAWS(CHH)-2016-7-79] [REFERRED TO]RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU ALIAS CHANDRA PRAVESH TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
BENIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMARSING RUPSING MAHIDA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-154] [REFERERD TO]
SUJITH A.V. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-203] [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP BHATNAGAR VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-327] [REFERRED TO]
JOGA RAM VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2024-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD FARUKH VS. STATE OF N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
BALVEER VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
LOKESH PAL VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
NANDITA BAKSHI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-718] [REFERRED]
ANIL MON THOMAS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-143] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
H. K. Sema, J. -
(1.)This appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 12-5-2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 1996, whereby the High Court recorded acquittal of respondents-accused herein, by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the respondent and others under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them RI for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo RI for a period of one month.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- On 16-9-1989, the respondents herein were loitering around kothi building where the courts are situated in order to find out the deceased-Lal Mohd. They were all sitting in an auto-rickshaw which was hired by them. Finally, they succeeded in locating the deceased-Lal Mohd. who was sitting in a tempo. While the tempo stopped for permitting a lady to alight from it and proceeded ahead, the accused-respondents obstructed the said tempo and they pulled out the deceased-Lal Mohd. from the said tempo and assaulted him with swords and knives causing number of injuries, which resulted in his death. The matter was investigated and after a prima facie case being established the charge was laid before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the two eye-witnesses PW-8 Mohd. Amin and PW-9 Zakir Ali who later juxtaposed as DW-1 and DW-2, came to the conclusion that an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 was found well established against the accused and convicted as aforesaid.
(3.)Before the Trial Court four accused had faced the trial namely accused Badri Yadav, Raju, Mahesh Bhat and Mohan Jayaswal. Accused-Mohan Jayaswal died during the trial. Accused-Mahesh Bhat was acquitted by the Trial Court on benefit of doubt. Accused-Raju died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, appeal qua him stands abated. Now only the respondent-accused Badri Yadav is before us.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- On 16-9-1989, the respondents herein were loitering around kothi building where the courts are situated in order to find out the deceased-Lal Mohd. They were all sitting in an auto-rickshaw which was hired by them. Finally, they succeeded in locating the deceased-Lal Mohd. who was sitting in a tempo. While the tempo stopped for permitting a lady to alight from it and proceeded ahead, the accused-respondents obstructed the said tempo and they pulled out the deceased-Lal Mohd. from the said tempo and assaulted him with swords and knives causing number of injuries, which resulted in his death. The matter was investigated and after a prima facie case being established the charge was laid before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the two eye-witnesses PW-8 Mohd. Amin and PW-9 Zakir Ali who later juxtaposed as DW-1 and DW-2, came to the conclusion that an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 was found well established against the accused and convicted as aforesaid.
(3.)Before the Trial Court four accused had faced the trial namely accused Badri Yadav, Raju, Mahesh Bhat and Mohan Jayaswal. Accused-Mohan Jayaswal died during the trial. Accused-Mahesh Bhat was acquitted by the Trial Court on benefit of doubt. Accused-Raju died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, appeal qua him stands abated. Now only the respondent-accused Badri Yadav is before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.