The complainant appealed against the acquittal of 11 accused for rioting, assault, and offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court found the trial court's judgment perverse for misreading evidence and ignoring the consistent testimony of injured witnesses. It set aside the acquittal, convicted the accused, and sentenced them.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.876 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT DUNDA VILLAGE, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
AND:
Crl.A.No.876/2011
2
ALL RESIDING AT DUNDA VILLAGE, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 R/W 378 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPL.C.NO.288/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKUR
Crl.A.No.876/2011
3
AND SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF ON THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2011, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323 AND 324 R/W 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/S 3 CLAUSE (l) SUB CLAUSE (x) AND (xi) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This is complainant’s appeal filed under Section 372 r/w Sec.378 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2011, passed in Spl.C.No.288/2008 by III Addl.Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, by which respondents/accused No.1 to 11 came to be acquitted for the offences punishable u/secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC and ST (POA) Act).
Crl.A.No.876/2011
4
3.1 Based on the complaint, the concerned police registered the case in Crime No.58/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, against accused No.1 to 11 and taken up investigation. The injured have taken treatment at the hospital. The weapons used by the accused to assault the complainant and others were recovered from the spot. The accused persons were arrested and later on they
Crl.A.No.876/2011
5
secured bail. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only against accused No.1 to 9.
3.2 In fact charge was framed against accused No.1 to 9 and they pleaded not guilty.
3.3 The complainant was examined as PW-1. During the course of her examination-in-chief, she specifically spoke with regard to involvement of accused No.10 Gowramma and accused No.11 Kalpana. Based on it, learned Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 17.04.2010, the trial Court allowed the said application and arraigned them as accused No.10 and 11.
3.4 In fact in response to the summons, they appeared and contested the matter. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.5 In order to bring home guilt to the accused, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 31 and got marked Exs.P1 to 23 and MOs 1 to 11.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
6
3.6 During the course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied the incriminating evidence.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
7
trial Court has erred in not accepting the case of the prosecution. It has discarded the testimony of eye witnesses as well as the injured based on minor discrepancies, despite the fact that even after thorough cross-examination, their testimony could not be shaken. The impugned judgment and order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order, convict the accused persons and sentence them appropriately.
for complainant has relied upon the following decisions.
1 AIR 1965 SC 202
2 (1998)9 SCC 63
3 AIR 2002 SC 1965
4 AIR 2002 SC 3633
5 (2003) 7 SCC 749
Crl.A.No.876/2011
8
6 AIR 2003 SC 3609
7 AIR 2004 SC 346
8 (2006) 9 SCC 247
9 AIR 2007 SC 2524
10 AIR 2008 SC 175
11 (2009) 10 SCC 773
12 AIR 2010 SC 3071
13 AIR 2011 SC 1859
14 AIR 2012 SC 3046
15 (2014)5 SCC 108
16 2021 (4) Crimes 442
Crl.A.No.876/2011
9
Crl.A.No.876/2011
10
Crl.A.No.876/2011
11
truth. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
12
injured witness has it own relevancy and efficacy. The fact that the witness is injured at the time and in the same occurrence lends support to the testimony that the witness was present during occurrence and he saw the happening with his own eyes.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
13
to serve interest of justice, when factual errors are committed by the decision givers.
xiv. In Dayal Singh referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the investigation is perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the Court to see the evidence given in Court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. For the mistake committed by the investigating officer deliberately or otherwise, the prosecution case cannot suffer. It would not be right in acquitting the accused persons solely on the ground of such defect in investigation and to do so would tantamount to playing in the hands of the Investigating Officer, if investigation is designedly defective.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
14
Crl.A.No.876/2011
15
language referring to their caste. Based on the complaint filed by PW-1 Lakshmamma, case was registered and after conducting detailed investigation charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 9. Though there were specific allegations against accused Nos.10 and 11, for reasons best known to him the Investigating Officer did not choose to file charge sheet against them. However, based on the evidence of PW-1, the learned Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C and accordingly they were summoned and the trial against accused Nos.10 and 11 was continued.
the fact that this is a statutory appeal filed by the complainant, it is necessary to re-appreciate the oral and
Crl.A.No.876/2011
16
documentary evidence placed on record and to ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court is contrary to the evidence placed on record and as such perverse calling for interference by this Court.
17 (2014) 15 SSCC 163
Crl.A.No.876/2011
17
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, at the outset it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the complainant and injured witnesses i.e victims belongs to Scheduled Caste, whereas accused belongs to forward community and the accused persons committed the offences in question for the reason that the victims belong to Scheduled Caste. The Tahsildar who is cited as CW-27 has issued the certificate at Ex.P1 stating that injured Manjunatha, Narasimha Murthy, Kempaobalaiah, Govindaraju, Kempaobalaiah, S/o Buddhaiah, Umesha, Venkatesh and Mahalakshmamma (PW-5, 6, 7, 4, 9, 16, 8, and 10) belong to Adi Karnataka, which comes under Schedule Caste and accused No.1 to 6 Belongs to Vakkaligara community and accused Nos.7 to 11 belong to Lingayat community.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
18
and injured belong to Scheduled Caste, whereas the accused persons are coming under forward category. Accordingly, the caste certificate is marked as Ex.P1 and CW-27 who has issued the same is given up. Thus, the prosecution has proved that PW-5, 6, 7, 4, 9, 16, 8, and 10 belong to Aadi Karnataka coming under Schedule Caste category, whereas accused Nos.1 to 6 are Vokkaligas and accused Nos.7 to 11 belong to Lingayat community.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
19
11, Gopalakrishna took PW-19 Shivmurthy and PW-20 Dilip to his land to remove stones pitched in the land and this was objected to by accused No.1 Sudeep and in fact he assaulted PW-19 Shivmurthy. Accordingly, PW-19 Shivamurthy went to police station and lodged complaint. The police assured that they would summon accused No.1. However, before anything could be done, the incident in respect of which the present case came to be filed occurred in the evening.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
20
not found and his mother is informed. However, at 5:30 p.m. the present incident took place.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
21
as PW-19 Shivamurthy chose to file a complaint against No.1 Sudeep in respect of the incident that took place in the morning at the land of PW-11 Gopalakrishna.
not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. During the cross-examination they have disputed that
Crl.A.No.876/2011
22
when the incident took place they were present and seen accused persons assaulting the complainant and other injured. However, PWs-1, 4 to 10, 16 to 20 have supported the prosecution case. Their evidence prove the fact that on 14.08.2008 at around 5:30 p.m, all the accused persons entered the Harijan colony. They were shouting that despite belonging to Schedule Caste, how dare they are to file complaint against people belonging to forward community and so saying they assaulted the residents of Harijan colony.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
23
that all the accused persons came abusing the residents of colony i.e., residents of Harijan colony in filthy language referring to their caste. Their house is the second house in the colony and the accused indiscriminately assaulted whoever they came across. Accused No.5 Shankaraiah assaulted on his head with a club and accused No.6 Shivakumar assaulted on his fore head, accused No.1 Sudeep assaulted with the club on his back and accused No.7 Harsha assaulted on his legs. He suffered bleeding head injury and when his mother (PW-1 Lakshmamma) and brother (PW-6, Narasimha Murthy) came to his rescue, they were also assaulted. PW-3 Venkatesh, PW-16 Umesh, PW-7 Kempahobalaiah and PW-10 Mahalakshmamma were also assaulted.
that when his mother tried to rescue PW-4 Govindaraju, she was assaulted by the accused persons and when he went to the rescue of his mother, he was also assaulted by accused No.2 Jayamma and accused No.7 Harsha
Crl.A.No.876/2011
24
assaulted him with stones. His brother was assaulted indiscriminately as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries to his head and they took him inside the house. The accused persons assaulted PW-8 Venkatesha, PW-10 Mahalakshmamma, PW-7 Kempahobalaiah and PW-5 Manjunatha.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
25
residents of the colony referring to their caste and they were holding stones and clubs. They were pelting stones, one of which fell on his head and he sustained injury. His mother forcibly took him inside the house and he stayed in there. He has further deposed that PW-4 Govindaraju was taken to the hospital and at the hospital he found PW-5 Manjunatha, PW-9 Kempaobalaiah, PW-6, Narasimha Murthy, PW-3 Venkatesha, PW-10 Mahalashmamma and PW-1 Lakshmamma with injuries.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
26
on 14.08.2008, when he returned to the colony, he found accused persons abusing the residents of the colony and before he could realise what is happening, he sustained injury to his head and lost conscious and he was taken to the hospital.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
27
persons started assaulting PW-4 Govindaraju with clubs. Accused No.5 Shankaraiah, accused No.4 Srinivasa and accused No.7 Harsha assaulted them. They indiscriminately assaulted whoever they came across them. Accused No.9 Prakash and accused No.8 Shivalingaiah assaulted him with hands. Out of fear he ran away. Later he found that PW-4 Govindaraju, PW-1 Lakshmamma, PW-6 Narasimha Murthy, PW-9 Kempaoblaiah, PW-7 Kempaobalaiah, PW-10 Mahalakshmamma and PW-8 Venkatesh also sustained injuries.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
28
Venkatesh. They were abusing the residents of colony referring to their caste. They also caused damage to plastic pots at the house of PW-1 Lakshmamma. So far as PW-19 Shivamurthy is concerned, he has deposed that when the accused persons came in a group and barged into the colony fearing for his life he ran away.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
29
accused persons and the reason for the assault carried out on them is the fact that PW-19 and 20 choose to complain the high-handed act of accused No.1 Sudeep in assaulting them when they went to work in the land of PW-11 Gopalakrishna. They were angry that PW-19 and 20 had the audacity of complaining against them despite belonging to Scheduled Caste. Being injured their presence at the scene of occurrence is guaranteed the evidence of these witnesses lend support to the prosecution case. Absolutely, they have no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
30
PW-5 Manjunath, PW-7 Kempaobalaiah, PW-8 Venkatesh, PW-9 Kempaobalaiah, PW-1 Lakshmamma and PW-4 Govindaraju, who were brought with the history of assault with clubs and stones and treated them. He has issued the injury certificates at Ex.P7 to 12 and the accident register extract at Ex.P13. He has given the nature of the injury sustained by these witnesses.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
31
the complaint written through some other person. In fact, during her cross-examination, she is unable to recollect whether it was written by her son or any other person. Having regard to the fact that both her sons were injured, in all probabilities they are not the scribes of the complaint. In fact, during their cross-examination, the defence has not elicited anything with regard to they being the scribe of the complaint.
the case with regard to the said insertion. Though PW-31 Mahadevaiah has admitted that the date 14.80.2008 is
Crl.A.No.876/2011
32
inserted in between second and third line, he has denied that originally in the complaint, date was not forthcoming and it has been inserted subsequently.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
33
there were several injured persons including the complainant, immediately they were taken to the hospital and after treatment, complaint came to be lodged at 9- 00 p.m. Consequently, at the first available opportunity the complaint was filed and based on it the Investigating Officer has registered the case.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
34
the date 14.08.2008. It appears in the complaint, the date was not specified and when particularly questioned by the Investigating Officer or the scribe of the complaint on his own has inserted the date in between the second and third line of the complaint.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
35
Crl.A.No.876/2011
36
Crl.A.No.876/2011
37
as to how the prosecution is benefited by it or the accused are prejudiced.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
38
the stage of investigation, the Investigating Officer has requested the Court to include offence under Section 307 I.P.C. However, after receipt of the injury certificates, in his wisdom, the Investigating Officer has not included the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. in the charge sheet. The same cannot be find fault with and disbelieve the case of the prosecution, especially when the witnesses have consistently and categorically deposed with regard to the complicity of the accused persons in the crime.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
39
come to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt to the accused. The view taken by the trial Court is wholly unreasonable and is not a plausible view. Certainly, there is non-consideration of evidence placed on record. There is also palpable misreading of evidence and consequently, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is perverse. It is a fit case to interfere in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Section 372 r/w Section 378 Cr.P.C. is
allowed.
(ii) Accused Nos.1 to 11 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC
and ST (POA) Act.
Sd/JUDGE
RR
Crl.A.No.876/2011
40
JMKJ:
16.11.2023
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Heard accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 11, the learned Senior counsel representing them as well as learned counsel for complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader on sentence.
for taking lenient view in imposing the punishment and have filed separate affidavit with documents.
2.1 In the affidavit, accused No.1 has stated that he is a graduate, an agriculturist by profession. He is having the responsibility of taking care of his aged-ailing parents. He has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to his parents.
2.2 In the affidavit, accused No.2 has stated that she is suffering from arthritis and dependent on her son. She has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to her treatment.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
41
2.3 In the affidavit, accused No.3 has stated that
he is an agriculturist having responsibility of taking care of his two brothers, mother, wife and minor children. He has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to his mother Gowramma.
2.4 In the affidavit, accused No.4, who is brother of accused No.3 has stated that he is an agriculturist having responsibility of taking care of his two brothers, mother, wife and minor children. He has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to his mother.
2.5 In the affidavit, accused No.5, who is brother of accused No.3 has stated that he is an agriculturist having responsibility of taking care of his two brothers and mother. He has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to his mother.
2.6 In the affidavit, accused No.6 has stated that he has done C-P.Ed and an agriculturist by profession. He
is having responsibility of taking care of his wife, two sons and daughter. He is suffering from heart ailment. He
Crl.A.No.876/2011
42
has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to him.
2.7 In the affidavit, accused No.7has stated that he is an agriculturist having responsibility of taking care of his mother, wife, two daughters and a son.
2.8 Accused No.8 is reported to be dead and consequently, appeal against him is abated.
2.9 In the affidavit, accused No.9 has stated that he is an agriculturist having responsibility of repaying the loan. He is suffering from nerve damage in his feet. His wife is suffering from slip disc. His family consist of his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand son. He has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to him and his wife.
2.10 In the affidavit, accused No.10 has stated that her family consist of a son and his family and she is dependent on them. Since 10 years she is suffering from arthritis. She is no other than the mother of accused
Crl.A.No.876/2011
43
Nos.3 to 5. She has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to her.
2.11 In the affidavit, accused No.11 has stated that she is a house wife and her family consist of husband, two sons and a daughter. She is suffering from health issues. She has produced copies of medicals records pertaining to her.
18 (2019) 4 SCC 125
19 AIR 2021 SC 2190
Crl.A.No.876/2011
44
SC/ST (POA) Act, and taking into consideration the concerted manner in which the accused have carried out the assault on the complainant and others, appropriate punishment may be imposed.
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 I.P.C and Sections 3(1) (x) and 3(1) (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
45
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
46
Harijan colony and indiscriminately assault the complainant and others for the simple reason that two of them approached the police and complain against accused No.1 Sudeep with regard to an incident which took place in the land of PW-19 Shivamurthy. The accused have chosen to assault complainant and others for the simple reason that though they belong to Schedule Caste, they had the courage or audacity of complaining against person belonging to forward community. Keeping in mind these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to sentence accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 11 as under:
11.1) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 r/w/s 149 I.P.C
11.2) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/, in default to undergo simple
Crl.A.No.876/2011
47
imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 147 r/w/s 149 I.P.C
11.3) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
11.4) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four months and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
11.5) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
11.6) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay
Crl.A.No.876/2011
48
fine of Rs.3,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST (POA) Act r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
11.7) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) (POA) Act r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
concurrently.
judgment and order to accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 forthwith.
Crl.A.No.876/2011
49
along with copy of the judgment and order.
Sd/JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Act was perverse and warranted interference by the appellate court.
Whether the evidence of the injured prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial court erred in doubting the prosecution case based on an alleged discrepancy regarding the date in the complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Masalti v. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Masalti V/s State of U.P. (Masalti) AIR 1965 SC 202 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Hari OmReferred¶10
State of U.P. V/s Hari Om (Hari Om) (1998)9 SCC 63 · Who else cites this
Krishna Mochi v. State of BiharReferred¶10
Krishna Mochi and others V/s State of Bihar (Krishna Mochi) AIR 2002 SC 1965 · Who else cites this
Gangadhar Behera v. State of OrissaReferred¶10
Gangadhar Behera V/s State of Orissa (Gangadhar Behera) AIR 2002 SC 3633 · Who else cites this
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath DhobaleReferred¶10
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan V/s Vasant Raghunath Dhobale (Shakila) (2003) 7 SCC 749 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab v. Karnail SinghReferred¶10
State of Punjab V/s Karnail Singh (Karnail Singh) AIR 2003 SC 3609 · Who else cites this
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of GujaratReferred¶10
Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh V/s State of Gujarat and others (Zahira Habibulla) AIR 2004 SC 346 · Who else cites this
Surender Singh v. State of HaryanaReferred¶10
Surender Singh V/s State of Haryana (Surender Singh) (2006) 9 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra v. State of West BengalReferred¶10
Ananta Deb Singha Mahapatra and others V/s State of West Bengal (Ananta) AIR 2007 SC 2524 · Who else cites this
Bhagga v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶10
Bhagga and others V/s State of Madhya Pradesh (Bhagga) AIR 2008 SC 175 · Who else cites this
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others V/s State of Maharashtra (Pandurang) (2009) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Krishna MasterReferred¶10
State of U.P. V/s Krishna Master and others (Krishna Master) AIR 2010 SC 3071 · Who else cites this
Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶10
Arumugam Servai V/s State of Tamil Nadu (Arumugam) AIR 2011 SC 1859 · Who else cites this
Dayal Singh v. State of UttaranchalReferred¶10
Dayal Singh V/s State of Uttaranchal (Dayal Singh) AIR 2012 SC 3046 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat v. KishanbhaiReferred¶10
State of Gujarat V/s Kishanbhai etc. (Kishanbhai) (2014)5 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
Hari v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶10
Hari and others V/s the State of Uttar Pradesh (Hari) 2021 (4) Crimes 442
Vijay Pal Singh v. State of UttarkhandRelied on¶14
Vijay Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarkhand (2014) 15 SSCC 163
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram DasReferred¶3
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikram Das (Vikram Das) (2019) 4 SCC 125 · Who else cites this
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶3
Patan Jamal Vali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Patan Jamal) AIR 2021 SC 2190 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Nanjaiah
D R Sudeep S/o D N Rajshekar
Smt Jayamma W/o D M Rajshekar
Nataraja @ Natesha S/o Krishnappa
B K Srinivas S/o D M Krishnappa
D K Shankaraiah S/o Krishnappa
J.M.Khazi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
