Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab

The victim Mehtab Singh was the father of the appellant Babu Singh and Babu Lal is the friend
of Babu Singh. Mehtab Singh and his son relation were not cordial and he had complained to the
police authorities that he apprehended danger from his son. And one day the two appellants
entered the house in which Mehtab Singh lived and they caught hold of Mehtab Singh while he
was sleeping and killed him. The dead body of the victim was then packed up in a gunny bag and
concealed in a corner and removed a bag containing Rs. 1200/- and after some days both
removed the dead body of the deceased. The trial judge has accepted this convicted both the
appellants under s. 302 read with s. 34 as well as. 201. But High Court set aside sentence of both
but babulal was convicted under section 201 for concealing the dead body and Supreme Court
accepted the High Court judgment.
Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors vs State Of Kerala
Abdul Rehman is a notorious smuggler based at Dubai and the deceased Hamza was one of his
agent leaked out the information of smuggling to officials of the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence (DRI). The first accused was greatly enraged by the breach of trust committed by
Hamza and threatened to kill them. Hamza was shot dead at Poinachi while he was returning
from Mangalore on the night on completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet against
accused in which first accused was Abdul. The above conspirators had made the necessary
preparations, equipped themselves and successfully achieved the object of the conspiracy by the
murder of Hamza. They had also sought the evidence of commission of the offence to disappear
and to screen the offenders.Supreme court hold that the judgment of the High Court confirming
the judgment/order of the trial Court so the eight accused persons were punishable under sections
120-B, 302 read with Section 511 IPC, Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC and sections
34,109,143, 148, 201, 201 read with sections 34, 109 and 120-B and section 194 IPC and also
under section 27 of the Arms Act.
State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr
In this case the acquaintance between Soman and Krishan Kumari (A2) developed into love
affair between the two. Out of their illicit relationship they had got a son. Deceased Soman
accidently came across with A2 and came to know about her love affair with A1so she made up
his mind to put an end to the intimacy by causing his death. The dead body of Soman was

removed by A1 and A2 with the help of Prasannan who is accused no. 3 and thrown it in the
river. The Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under Section 193, 201, 342 and 302 read with
Section 120B of the IPC. The Accused No.3 tried with them was convicted and sentenced for the
offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence of A1
was upheld but of A2 under Section 302 IPC was set aside, however, convicted and sentenced
under Section 201. Supreme court agree with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the High
Court and appeal dismissed.
Gulam Sarbar vs State Of Bihar
In this case, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant was going along with Sant
Kumar Sinha (deceased), to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his motorcycle and in the way six persons
including the appellants signaled the complainant to stop and he stopped his motorcycle . They
threatened Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) to remain away from the institute which was run by
Binod Kumar and led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and one of the accused
Yakub opened fire from his revolver due to which the deceased collapsed and died. Trial court in
its judgment convicted both the appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC alongwith other
accused. High Court and Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court decision.
Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar
Mohan Singh, the appellant herein, and asked the informant to send him Rs.50,000/- and
threatened him that since the demand of money had not been fulfilled, the informant should be
ready to face the consequences. The informant submitted that he had similar conversations with
the caller three to four times in the past. At about 9.00 P.M. when the informant received a call
from his driver and informed that his elder brother and father had been shot and that both of them
had been sent to Hospital. His brother died but father was alive and he was also told that the
shots had been fired by one Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh. Laxmi Singh had fired shots at him
and Anil Kumar Jha with an A.K. 47 rifle, before fleeing from the scene. The High Court also
held that the conspiracy has to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and it came to the
conclusion conspiracy was made out. Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant
under Section 120B of IPC for life imprisonment is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Yamuna Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar
Yamuna Singh (A-1) owned a building in which the ground floor consisted of three tenements
out of which one room was in possession of deceased. All the appellants and the absconding

accused used gather at the place of A-1 and shared cheap Jokes with these two ladies. Deceased
used to tell them to behave properly and this will create a very bad effect on the youngsters in the
locality. The appellants and A-1 got upset by this remark and decided to teach a lesson to the
deceased. As per the conspiracy made to eliminate deceased, at about mid night they knocked the
door of the deceased and shouted "Bap Re Bap". As anticipated by the conspirators, the deceased
came out of his room and A-3 and P.W.1 caught hold of the deceased and forcibly hit on the left
shoulder of the deceased who thereafter a fell down and then A-1 came back and fired a shot
from his gun by which deceased died. The trial court on appreciation of ocular evidence and
other materials on record found all the appellants guilty under Sections 120B/302 and 302/34
IPC and convicted each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life. High Court and Supreme
Court agreed by trial court decision.