State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rinku Singh .
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.1445 of 2015
Petitioner: State of Madhya Pradesh
Respondent: Rinku Singh .
Judges: ANIL R. DAVE , ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 2015
JUDGEMENT:
Non-Repotable CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.1445 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 620 of 2013
State of Madhya Pradesh … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
Rinku Singh … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgement and noted the nature of injuries caused by fire arm to the victim. In our view, reduction of sentence by the High Court is not proper. We are of the view that atleast three years’ sentence ought to have been imposed on the respondnt-accused. 4. In these circumstances, we modify the impugned judgement to the effect that the sentence shall be enhanced to three years. 5. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent.
……………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 2nd November, 2015.
Criminal Appeal No.1445 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 620 of 2013
State of Madhya Pradesh … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
Rinku Singh … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgement and noted the nature of injuries caused by fire arm to the victim. In our view, reduction of sentence by the High Court is not proper. We are of the view that atleast three years’ sentence ought to have been imposed on the respondnt-accused. 4. In these circumstances, we modify the impugned judgement to the effect that the sentence shall be enhanced to three years. 5. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent.
……………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
………………J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 2nd November, 2015.
