Brief Facts and Procedural History: The victim Hitesh Thakur had visited the house of Mukesh Thakur (Accused No.2) where a drinking party was arranged during the night of 27.07.2011 and…
|Case||Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris and Others v State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625|
|Bench||MK Mukherjee and SSM Quadri, JJ.|
|Author of the judgement||SSM Quadri, Justice.|
|Case No.||Criminal Appeals Nos. 1064 to 1066 of 1997|
|Decided On||March 5, 1998|
|Advocate for appellant (in Crl.A.No. 1064 of 1997)||U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate (Am Khanwilkar, AP Mayee and Vijay Kumar, Advocates, with him)|
|Advocate for appellant (in Crl.A.No. 1065 of 1997)||Ms Shilpa Malvankar, SC Paul, Anand Jain and JD Jain.|
|Advocates for the respondent||IG Shah, MS Nargolkar, Senior Advocates (DM Nargolkar, Advocate, with them)|
|Author of the brief||Aditya Gor|
|Keywords||Criminal Law, Death punishment, Life Imprisonment, Murder.|
|Case||Balak Ram v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 2165|
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Bench||H.R. Khanna and Y.V. Chandrachud JJ.|
|Author of the judgement||Y.V. Chandrachud J.|
|Decided on||16 Aug, 1974|
|Abstract||In the present case, shots were fired on Triveni Ben by Balak Ram on the instruction of other persons due to the matter of political rivalry. Three dying declarations were given by the victim. The present case deals with the correctness of the evidences and dying declaration taken into consideration by the High Court. It was held by the supreme court that the High Court has erred in accepting the evidences while the view taken by the trial court was found to be correct and thus upheld.|
|Author of the brief||Kunal Rawat|
|Keywords||Dying Declaration, Evidence, Corroboration, etc.|
In the instant judgement, the Honourable Apex Court of the country has made the accused liable for murder under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1960. It is interesting how the Honourable Supreme Court by placing reliance on Arya Joseph alias current Kunjukunju v/s. State of Kerala held that the FIR in the question is not anti-dated or anti-timed.
Anjan Das Gupta v/s. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2016
Before the Supreme Court of India
Coram: Ashok Bhushan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Author of the Judgement: Justice Ashok Bhushan
Delivered on: November 25, 2016.
Advocate for Appellant: Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel.
Advocate for Respondent: Rupesh Kumar, Senior Counsel.
Advocate for State: Parijat Sinha, Senior Counsel.
Brief Facts: On 16th June In2000, at around 4:50 PM, the deceased- Debol Kumar Ghosh was sitting in his party office and at that time Anjan Das Gupta along with 4 other persons arrived there. The present appellant- Debol Kumar Ghosh has ordered certain persons to shoot the deceased from the pipe gun. This led to the death of the accused. Sandip Ghosh, the son of the deceased, was an eye-witness to this incident.
In the initial proceedings of the case, the accused were charge-sheet under Indian Penal Code as:
- Section 302/34– Anjan Das Gupta, Bhola Kundu, Saroj Roy and Biswanath Paul
- Section 212 – Basudev Paul.