Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)Section 34 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Hasmat on 26 July, 2004
In the case of State of Haryana Vs Hasmat (decided
by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 26th July 2004 in Appeal Crl.
715-717 of 2004), relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent/victim, Hon'ble
Supreme Court set aside the order of Punjab & Haryana High Court
regarding the suspension of sentence and enlargement of
accused/convict on bail convicted for commission of offences u/ss
148/302/307/324 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act on the ground
of seriousness of offence wherein the relevant facts like the "nature of
acquisition" the manner in which crime was committed, "the gravity of
offence" and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they
were convicted for committing serious offence of murder, and the said
aspects were not considered by the High Court which passing the
impugned order of suspension/bail.
Vajida Bano And Ors vs State Through Advocate General on 17 March, 2020
To support of their arguments, learned counsels have relied upon the
judgments reported in, (i) (1999) 4 Supreme court Cases 421
(Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others--Appellants versus State of
Gujarat--Respondents) & (ii) judgment/order of J&K High Court
rendered in CrlA (S) No. 05/2019 CrlM No. 853/2019 (Vajida Bano
and Ors v/s State).
Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
P. S. R. Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam & Anr on 1 February, 1980
(1980) 3 SCC 141 (P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and another);
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs State Of Punjab [Alongwith Criminal ... on 10 April, 1957
8. (1979) 4 SCC 719 (Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab), held, that the
victims of heinous crime cannot be denied the right to address their
grievances before the court of law. In the decision (Supra) Hon'ble
8 CrlM Nos. 391 & 445/2022
in Crl A(S) No. 48/2019
Madhya Pradesh High Court held, that Section 372 of Code of Criminal
Procedure gives right to victim to file an appeal against order of
conviction which clearly gives right to the prosecutrix a victim of
heinous crime on her person to approach the court for cancellation of
bail. The case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondent/victim
only lay down an invariable principle of law that in cases punished with
imprisonment of less than ten (10) years even no notice is required to be
given to the State/Public Prosecutor, however, in heinous offences like
that of murders u/s 302 IPC, the court has the power/jurisdiction to grant
or refuse the suspension of sentence and bail. In the case in hand,
appellants/convicts have been found guilty by the trial court of 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge Jammu for commission of offence u/s 307,
451, 34 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for (10)
years and also fine in the sum of Rs.10,000.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Maharashtra And Another vs Siraj Mohiuddin Gulam Mustafa And ... on 28 November, 2018
Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C is directed against
judgment of conviction dated 30.10.2019 and order of sentence dated
30.10.2019 rendered by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Jammu in file No. 33/Sessions titled "State v/s Ghulam Mustafa
& Anr." where under appellants/convicts have been found guilty of
commission of offences u/s 307, 451, 34 RPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for (10) years and also fine in the sum of
Rs.10,000/.