Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Ramesh Kumar vs . State. on 27 January, 2018

Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Arguments heard on the appeal.

The appellant has laid challenge to the judgment dated
11.08.2017 vide which he has been convicted for the offences u/s.279 IPC and
u/s.304A IPC and the order on sentence dated 22.11.2017 whereby he has
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence
u/s.279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the
offence u/s.304A IPC. The applicant has also been ordered to pay
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the legal representative of the deceased
u/s.357 Cr.PC.

Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld.
Addl. PP and have perused the impugned judgment as well as Trial Court
record, I feel constrained to note that the impugned judgment has been
passed by the Ld. Magistrate in a very casual manner without applying his
judicial mind to the material on record. This case affords a classic illustration
where judgment, ex-facie, appears not to be based upon the evidence on
record. There are material discrepancies with regard to the date of incident
(Contd/…….2/-)
CA No. 150/17
Ramesh Kumar vs. State.

Source: IK



This post first appeared on MMO, Gaming, SEO, Tech, Reviews, News: Gameforumer, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Ramesh Kumar vs . State. on 27 January, 2018

×

Subscribe to Mmo, Gaming, Seo, Tech, Reviews, News: Gameforumer

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×