Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.20 seconds)Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Babu And 3 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 19 January, 1965
In Babu v. State of U. P. AIR 1965 SC 1467, it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that where the third Judge did not consider it necessary to decide a particular point on which there had been difference of opinion between the two Judges, but simply indicated that if at all it was necessary for him to come to a decision on the point, he agreed with all that had been said about by one of the two Judges, such decision was in conformity with law.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 429 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Dan Singh And Ors on 3 February, 1997
In State of U. P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747 :(1997 AIR SCW 705) the respondents were tried in the Court of Session for various offences under Sections 147, 302/149, 436/149 and 307/149, I. P. C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. There were as many as 32 accused. Sessions Judge acquitted all of them. Aggrieved State filed appeal before the High Court of Allahabad. There was difference of opinion between the two Judges comprising the Division Bench. Katju, J. except for two respondents acquitted all the other respondents and upheld the judgment of the Sessions Judge to that extent. He convicted the two respondents whom he held guilty of offences under Section 325/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Rajeshwar Singh, J. was of the opinion that appeal against six respondents be allowed and he convicted them for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. He set aside the acquittal of four lady accused under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and sentenced them to undergo simple impri-sonment for one month each and to pay a line of Rs. 100/- each. Thus both the Judges agreed on the acquittal of 22 accused and there was difference of opinion with regard to six other accused and four lady accused. Appeal was then heard by the third Judge (Mathur, J.), who agreed with the opinion of Katju, J., the result being that only two respondents stood convicted under Section 325/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment. The State of U. P. sought special leave to appeal in this Court against the judgment of the High Court against all the 32 accused. Leave was, however, refused regarding the four lady accused. It was granted for other 28 accused. An argument to the following effect was raised before this Court (Para 21 of AIR) :-
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 1997
In Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156 : (1997 AIR SCW 2055) the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. On an appeal by the appellant the Division Bench was divided. One Judge was for allowing the appeal, the other for dismissing the same. When the matter was referred to the third Judge under Section 392 of the Code he agreed that appeal be dismissed and upheld the conviction of the appellant. When the matter came to this Court an argument was raised that in view of finding of one of the members of the Division Bench that the appellant was entitled to acquittal, such view in favour of acquittal, as a Rule of prudence, should be accepted by the third Judge hearing the appeal under Section 392 of the Code. This Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 392 and the question of acceptance of the view in favour of acquittal, as Rule of prudence or on the score of judicial etiquette by the third Judge. This Court referred to all the earlier decisions of this Court as were rendered under Section 429 of the old Code and Section 392 of the present Code and held as under' (Paras 5 to 7 of AIR) :-
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs P. T. Appaiah And Another on 28 August, 1980
In State of A. P. v. P. T. Appaiah (1980) 4 SCC 316 : (AIR 1981 SC 365) it has been held by this Court that even in a case when both the Judges had held that the accused was guilty but there was difference of opinion as to the nature of offence committed by the accused, it was open to the third Judge to decide the appeal by holding that the accused was not guilty by considering the case on merit.