Gurdeep Singh
v.
State Of Rajasthan
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 78 Of 1976 | 16-02-1979
FAZAL ALI, J.
1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to three years RI and one of Rs. 500 and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to under go imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court. The case depends purely in appreciation of evidence and the courts below have accepted the prosecution story. Mr. Mookherjee appearing for the appellant submitted that a lenient view on the question of sentence may be taken in view of the animus between the parties. The nature of the injury shows that both hands of the victim were almost maimed by the shots fired by the appellant. In these circumstances we do not think that there is any room for reduction as the sentence.
3. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to three years RI and one of Rs. 500 and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to under go imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court. The case depends purely in appreciation of evidence and the courts below have accepted the prosecution story. Mr. Mookherjee appearing for the appellant submitted that a lenient view on the question of sentence may be taken in view of the animus between the parties. The nature of the injury shows that both hands of the victim were almost maimed by the shots fired by the appellant. In these circumstances we do not think that there is any room for reduction as the sentence.
3. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE SYED M. FAZAL ALI
HON'BLE JUSTICE A. D. KOSHAL
Eq Citation
(1981) SCC CRI 360
1979 WLN 112
AIR 1979 SC 1432
1979 (11) UJ 355
(1980) (SUPP) SCC 432
LQ/SC/1979/132
HeadNote
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 326 and 27 — Appeal against conviction under S. 326 IPC and S. 27 of Arms Act — Conviction confirmed — Sentence — No error of law found in judgment of High Court — Nature of injury shows that both hands of victim were almost maimed by shots fired by appellant — Held, no room for reduction in sentence
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
