Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad V/s State of Maharashtra

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2013-05-03
Case No: 6287 of 2011
Case Type: SLP (Criminal)
Judge Name: T.S. Thakur & Gyan Sudha Misra
Subject: Criminal Law
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section: Criminal Justice Act 1972 Criminal Justice Act 1982 Fatal Accidents Act Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 300 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sec
Bench Strength: Double Bench
State of Appellant(s): Maharashtra
Equal Citation Details :

AIR2013SC2454, 2013(3)AJR795, 2013 (82) ALLCC 311, 2013ALLMR(Cri)2221, 2013(2)BomCR(Cri)830, 2013CriLJ3044, ILR 2013 NULL 2565, JT2013(7)SC26, 2013(4)MPHT249, 2013(2)RCR(Criminal)1036, 2013(6)SCALE778, (2013)6SCC770, 2013(4)ABR648, 2013ix AD (S.C.) 294, 

Case Note / Description :

Held, nature of simple injury inflicted by accused, part of body on which it was inflicted, weapon used to inflict same and circumstances in which injury was inflicted do not suggest that Appellant had intention to kill deceased - However, Appellant had knowledge that injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death of deceased - Therefore, case would more appropriately fall under Section Part II of IPC - Hence, Appeal allowed to extent that instead of Section of IPC Appellant was convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section Part II of IPC - Appeal disposed off. Criminal - Compensation - Section of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Whether any compensation was to be awarded against Appellant and in favour of bereaved family Under Section of Cr.P.C. - Held, under Section of Cr. P.C., Court is empowered to direct State to pay compensation to victim in such cases where compensation awarded Under Section is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where case ends in acquittal or discharge and victim has to be rehabilitated - Further, power to award compensation under Section was not ancillary to other sentences but in addition thereto - Moreover, Court had duty to apply its mind to question of awarding compensation under Section - Furthermore, while award or refusal of compensation might be within Court's discretion, it was mandatory duty of Court to apply its mind to question in every criminal case - However, Section Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary and such enquiry could precede order on sentence to enable Court to take a view both on question of sentence and compensation that it might in its wisdom decide to award to victim or his/her family - Thus, evenif regretted by order of High Court and Trial Court on occasion to consider question of award of compensation, fine imposed upon Appellant and default sentence awarded to him was sustained - Appeal disposed off.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)