Supreme Court of India

DAGDU & OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 19 April 1977
Judges listed: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[1977] 3 S.C.R. 636 · 1977 INSC 127

Also cited as

(1977) 3 SCC 68 (41 citing judgments)
AIR 1977 SC 1579 (7 citing judgments)
(1977) SCC(CRI) 421 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 12 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES versus IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES 19 September 2022 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 12
ACCUSED 'X' versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 12 April 2019 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 19
MUKESH & ANR. versus STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 5 May 2017 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 107
GUDDA @ DWARIKENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 30 September 2013 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 34
DEEPAK RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR 19 September 2013 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 10 and 3 other paragraphs

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

We show no paragraphs for this judgment: the judgment's start was not found in our copy, so its stored text may include the editorial headnote; we could not check the quote or pin-cite against it.