Logo
niyam.ai

Syed Akbar Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka [2010] INSC 25 (8 January 2010) 2010 Latest Caselaw 25 SC

Judges:

Full Judgement

Syed Akbar Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka [2010] INSC 25 (8 January 2010) Judgment CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6347/2009) SYED AKBAR IRFAN AND ORS. Appellant(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, passed in Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2005. The appellants herein were charged and tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 427, 324, 504, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record and the case properties, the Trial Court acquitted all the appellants. -2- On an appeal filed by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The appellants were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each under Section 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Out of the fine amount totalling to Rs.30,000/-, PW-11 Habeeb Mojam and PW-12 Mohd. Miraj, who are said to have suffered injuries, were directed to be paid compensation for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the High Court being the appellate Court in this case, has not considered the questions of law and facts after critical scrutiny of the -3- evidence on record. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the criminal appeal afresh after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. .....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI) .....................J (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi; January 8, 2010.

Similar Judgements

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. & Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 24 SC

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 6503 of 2022] [Civil Appeal No. 6502 of 2022] [Civil Appeal No. 4612 of 2023] B.R. Gavai, J. Civ...

View Details

Shazia Aman Khan and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 133 SC

Shazia Aman Khan and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.________ of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7290 of 2023] Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Court has been c...

View Details

Bharti Airtel Limited Vs A.s. Raghavendra 2024 Latest Caselaw 207 SC

Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. A.S. Raghavendra [Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023] Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-in-person. 2. The present appeal aris...

View Details

Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr. 2024 Latest Caselaw 222 SC

Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023] [Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023] Sanjay Kumar, J 1. In the year 2019, Karikho Kri, an independent candidate, Dr. Mohesh Chai, c...

View Details

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. 2024 Latest Caselaw 224 SC

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [Curative Petition (C) Nos. 108-109 of 2022] [Review Petition (C) Nos. 1158-1159 of 2021] [Civil Appeal Nos. 5627-5628 of...

View Details

C. Haridasan Vs. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup 2023 Latest Caselaw 30 SC

C. Haridasan Vs. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2022] M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2021 ...

View Details