Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OMPAL SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ompal Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6254 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17772 (16 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

This appeal has been preferred by Ompal Singh and Babu Singh against the judgement and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Addl/ Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 514 of 2002 whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted under Sections 147 and 148, 323/149 and 307/149 IPC. A person can be convicted under Section 147 IPC if he is a member of Unlawful assembly and under Section 148 IPC, if he is armed with deadly weapon. The learned Judge has erred in awarding sentence under both the sections.

The learned Trial Court has further sentenced the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 147 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 148 IPC simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 323/149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307/149 IPC. Learned Trial Court has directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Learned Judge should have been careful while awarding different types of sentencing and directing them sentences to run concurrently.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgement.

Admit.

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that five accused persons died prior or during trial and it has not been specified as to which of the accused caused particular injury to  the injured. He has also contended that the injuries allegedly caused were either simple or were on non vital parts.

In the circumstances but without prejudice to the merits of the case, appellants be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and on depositing the amount of fine as imposed on them.

Dated: 16.10.2006

RKS/6254/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.