cites: 33738452 doctypes: judgments

The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.323 of 2004 (State vs. Ram Babu), convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 800 - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another on 15 September, 1976

23. The Apex Court in State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another1 while drawing a distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 of IPC held as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 373 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Budhi Singh vs State Of H.P. on 22 September, 2016

In Budhi Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2, the Supreme Court held as under:

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Kikar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 1993

In Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan3 the Apex Court held as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 88 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Surain Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2017

26. All the above three cases were considered by the Apex Court in Surain Singh v The State of Punjab4 and ultimately, it has been held by the Apex Court in that particular case, that the accused was liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 86 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2013

30. Considering the provisions of Section 357 of Cr PC and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v State of Maharashtra5, it is directed that the appellant shall also be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the widow of the deceased, i.e. (CW-1) Smt. Kusuma Devi. He is directed to deposit the said amount within three months, after being released from Jail. In the eventuality of depositing the said amount by the appellant before the trial Court, it would be the duty of the trial Court to disburse the said amount in favour of (CW-1) Smt. Kusuma Devi. In case, the appellant fails to deposit the said amount, he shall further undergo Jail sentence of two years.

Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 372 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search