Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. And Others on 6 August, 1999
Before parting with this judgment, we must point out that the trial court has committed patent illegality in passing the sentence since no fine has been imposed whereas it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. as the language used in Section 302 I.P.C. is "and shall also be liable to fine" Where the expression used by the legislature in section is "and shall also be liable to fine", the court is under obligation to impose fine also in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The imposition of both imprisonment and fine is imperative in such cases as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zunarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1999 SC 2881 in which reference has been made to the case of Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka 1981 Vol. 1 SCC 645.
Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, ... vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 1981
Before parting with this judgment, we must point out that the trial court has committed patent illegality in passing the sentence since no fine has been imposed whereas it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. as the language used in Section 302 I.P.C. is "and shall also be liable to fine" Where the expression used by the legislature in section is "and shall also be liable to fine", the court is under obligation to impose fine also in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The imposition of both imprisonment and fine is imperative in such cases as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zunarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1999 SC 2881 in which reference has been made to the case of Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka 1981 Vol. 1 SCC 645.
State Of H.P vs Nirmala Devi on 10 April, 2017
The Hon'ble Apex Court has recently considered this aspect in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Nirmala Devi (2017) 7 SCC 262 that after specifying particular term of imprisonment the use of words "and shall also be liable to fine" is provided under various sections of Indian Penal Code it is imperative to impose both the sentences i.e. imprisonment as well as fine. The convict is also liable to fine in addition to imprisonment. Since the State of U.P. has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence, we are not inclined to enhance the sentence imposing fine.
Pappu @ Avanish vs State Of U.P. on 7 November, 2012
The learned counsel for the appellant Raghunath to prop up his submission has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Pappu @ Avanish Vs. State of U.P., 2013 Vol. 80 ACC 797 and has submitted that in the said case two persons who had preferred the appeal against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. their conviction was set aside while one person who had committed a double murder by firing upon two persons was convicted and his conviction and sentence was up held by the Division Bench of this court, hence the aforesaid case squarely applies. In the present case the appellant Raghunath has been convicted erroneously with the aid of Section 34 of Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment as the exhortation by itself is not enough to prove common intention on the part of Raghunath, hence his conviction recorded by the trial court deserves to be set aside.