Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
20. As far as case of accused Ashok is concerned, prosecution case is primarily
based on deposition of PW1 Sheikh Maskoor Ali and PW4 Mohd.Mohsin.
Two employees of PW1 namely Anwar and Irfan @ Guddu were not
examined by the prosecution apparently as they could not be traced.
Accused Ashok is deposed to be the person who entered the shop of PW1
along with three other accomplices on 4.12.2007 at 12.15 noon at Karol
Bagh. One of the accomplices bolted the door of the shop from inside while
accused Ashok is deposed to have taken out the country made pistol. While
aiming it at PW1, he threatened to kill the complainant in case he is not
Page 6/15 of Judgment and order on sentence State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. dt 26.3.2012
7
handed over all the gold jewelery. At that juncture PW1 daringly took Ashok
by surprise by catching hold of his hand with which the katta was being
pointed. Two employees of PW1 tried to catch the accomplices but they fled
by opening the door. Ashok was found carrying five additional live cartridges
other than one loaded in the katta . Accused Ashok along with arms and
ammunition was handed over to the police.
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dhananjoy Chaterjee vs State Of W.B on 11 January, 1994
In case titled Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs State, (1994)2 SCC 220 it has been
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
"The measure of punishment in a given case must
depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct
of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected
state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate
punishment is manner in which the court responds
to the society's cry for justice against criminals.
Justice demands that courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the courts
reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts
must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal
but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the
society at large while considering imposition of
appropriate punishment."
Kuriachan Chacko & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2008
25.In another case titled as "Chacko Vs. State of Kerala", AIR 2004 SC 2688
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1