REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KAMARAJ Appellant

V/S

Manikam Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BIRAL MAL SINGHVI V. ANAND PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR S O KALYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
JAVA MALA VS. HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD MAHARASHTRA STATE VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN:CHANDRA PRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN POLICE SUB INSPECTOR POLICE STATION SITABULDI NAGPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMITSINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. N K THE ACCUSED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAMDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PAPPU alias YUNUS [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH GORKHI VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ALIAS CHINEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHD IMRAN KHAN VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred against the conviction or the appellant/A1 under Section 366(A), 368 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in S.C. No.28 of 1994 dated 30.12.2003.

(2.) The following is the brief account of prosecution case:

(3.) After the examination or prosecution witnesses, accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the incriminating circumstances for which they denied the complicity. Neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced on the side of accused. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, convicted and handed down the sentences on the appellant/accused 1 as stated above and acquitted all the other accused.

Click here to view full judgment.

KAMARAJ Vs. MANIKAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address