KRISHAN KHOKAR Vs. CBI
LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-398
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
December 17,2018
Krishan Khokar
Appellant
VERSUS
CBI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JOSEPH V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]RAMMI ALIAS RAMESHWAR V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BADRI RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DARYA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UGAR AHIR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD YUSUF MOMIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUVAN NATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN SINGH GURDIAL SINGH HARDIAL SINGH SURJIT SINGH HARBANS SINGH HAZUR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL [REFERRED TO]
B N MUTTO VS. T K NANDI [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD USMAN MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN MANIYAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. M K ANTHONY [REFERRED TO]
KHUJJIALIASSURENDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL ALIAS MUNNA VS. STATE N C T OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. INDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ESHER SINGH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
B P ACHALA ANAND VS. S APPI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SARAVANAN [REFERRED TO]
VAKIL PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RATHINAM ALIAS RATHINAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
JAYABALAN VS. U T OF PONDICHERRY [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PRITHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KRISHNA MASTER [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
PRITHIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAJU @ BALACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
VINAY TYAGI VS. IRSHAD ALI @ DEEPAK [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
BALKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
EXTRA JUDL. EXEC. VICTIM FAMILIES ASSN. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
DR.S.MURALIDHAR,J. -
(1.)These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th April 2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ("?trial Court"?) in SC No.26/2010 arising out of FIR No.RC- SI-1/2005/S0024 registered at PS Delhi Cantonment acquitting Sajjan Kumar (Accused No.1: "?A-1"?) of the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment while, at the same time, convicting Balwan Khokar ("?A-2"?), Mahender Yadav ("?A-3"?), Captain Bhagmal (Retd.) ("?A-4"?), Girdhari Lal ("?A-5"?), and Krishan Khokar ("?A-6"?). The trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, and A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC. A-3 and A-6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 9th May 2013, they have been sentenced in the following manner:
(i) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, A-2, A-4, and A-5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("?RI"?) for six months;
(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to two years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months;
(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to three years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months.
(2.)The Central Bureau of Investigation ("?CBI"?) has filed Crl.A.1099/2013 challenging the complete acquittal of A-1 and the acquittal of the other accused for the other charges framed against them. The complainant, Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), had also preferred Crl.A.850/2013 against the acquittal of A-1 which was subsequently withdrawn, with this Court granting her liberty to address arguments in Crl.A.1099/2013.
(3.)The convicted accused, have filed separate appeals. Crl.A.861/2013 has been preferred by A-2, Crl.A.715/2013 by A-3, Crl.A.851/2013 by A-4, Crl.A.710/2014 by A-5, and Crl.A.753/2013 by A-6. Charges framed against A-1
(i) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, A-2, A-4, and A-5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("?RI"?) for six months;
(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to two years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months;
(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to three years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months.
(2.)The Central Bureau of Investigation ("?CBI"?) has filed Crl.A.1099/2013 challenging the complete acquittal of A-1 and the acquittal of the other accused for the other charges framed against them. The complainant, Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), had also preferred Crl.A.850/2013 against the acquittal of A-1 which was subsequently withdrawn, with this Court granting her liberty to address arguments in Crl.A.1099/2013.
(3.)The convicted accused, have filed separate appeals. Crl.A.861/2013 has been preferred by A-2, Crl.A.715/2013 by A-3, Crl.A.851/2013 by A-4, Crl.A.710/2014 by A-5, and Crl.A.753/2013 by A-6. Charges framed against A-1
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.