NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2000-4-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
April 06,2000
NARINDER SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
R RAVI CHANDRAN VS. DJIBRILLA DIALLO [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-215] [REFERRED TO]C P VASHIST VS. ASHFAQ [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
M C D VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU TRADING COMPANY VS. SADA RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. OKRAM JITEN SINGH [LAWS(GAU)-2004-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. NIKHILESH ALIAS NIKHIL CHANDRA ESH [LAWS(GAU)-2007-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHEORAJ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2000-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHAGWAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
NURUDDIN MOLLA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2004-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SAMBHU NATH BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. HARIHARAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MITTALAL NAHAR [LAWS(MAD)-2002-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RASALAIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2002-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-213] [REFERRED TO]
KATHI BHARAT VAJSUR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. JYOTIRMOY MALAKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR KESHARWANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
JANGAL RAMSHARAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGRAH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PARMAR NAGINKUMAR PRABHUDAS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-273] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. RIYAJ ULLAH [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
GUNENDRA CHOUDHURY VS. SUMAN DEBNATH AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. CHUNILAL SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AMAN DHAMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD BABU AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-162] [REFERRED TO]
GURUBASAPPA SIDRAMAPPA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KEWAL KRISHAN [LAWS(P&H)-2002-3-118] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJRAT VS. SHARIFBHAI @ HAJARAT FIROZBHAI KAREJA & ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-224] [REFERRED TO]
ASIF KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2019-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
JENO TANTI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-1-184] [REFERRED TO]
FASAHAT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
VILAS DAGDU SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
ALLI NOUSHAD VS. RASHEED [LAWS(KER)-2022-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Wadhwa, J. -
(1.)The two appellants were tried for offence under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). They were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by judgment dated January 8, 1991. Against their acquittal State of Punjab filed appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The complainant also filed revision in the High Court assailing the order of acquittal by the Sessions Judge. High Court by the impugned judgment dated January 20, 1998 allowed the appeal as well as the revision and set aside the acquittal of the appellants. High Court convicted the second appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. First appellant was convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and similarly sentenced.
(2.)It is submitted before us that the High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the acquittal of the appellants, when Sessions Judge in a well considered judgment, having weighed all the pros and cons of the case, had rightly acquitted the appellants. It could not be said that the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge were perverse for the High Court to intervene.
(3.)To appreciate the submissions of the appellants we may examine the record of the case.
(2.)It is submitted before us that the High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the acquittal of the appellants, when Sessions Judge in a well considered judgment, having weighed all the pros and cons of the case, had rightly acquitted the appellants. It could not be said that the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge were perverse for the High Court to intervene.
(3.)To appreciate the submissions of the appellants we may examine the record of the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.