Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2018
7.It is not in dispute that the Judgment was pronounced before
the aforesaid amendment made to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. I cannot
agree with the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the accused
will not be put to prejudice. This scope of appeal and the scope of
revision are different. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
decision reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) (675 Mallikarjun Kodagali
Vs. State of Karnataka), had already held that the right to appeal
given to the victim would be prospective and enforceable with effect
from 31.12.2009 only. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I will have to necessarily disregard the
observations made by vide order dated 12.09.2014 in Crl.R.C.No.626
of 2009.
Suresh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 28 November, 2014
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my
attention to the decision rendered in 2015 (2) SCC 227 (Suresh and
another Vs. Sate of Haryana) for directing the State to pay
compensation to the widow of the victim.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1