Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided
20 July 2012
Judges listed
P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 558 · 2012 INSC 295
Also cited as
  • (2012) 11 SCC 629 (2 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 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 558, margin G

2

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondent-State.

p. 559, margin A

3

On 9th April, 2012, this Court issued notice confining to the question of sentence only that too for clarifying that all the sentences to run concurrently.

p. 559, margin A

4

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following order: i) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No.580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 302 l.P.C. and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a · period of six months. Out of this Rupees One Lac, Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased. ii) The accused Ramesh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 580/2004, Special Session Triable Case No.28/2005 under Section 2/ 3 [3(1)) Gangsters Act and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand), rupees twenty five thousand is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased. iii) Accused Ram.esh Chilwal @ Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No. 737/2004, Sessions Triable Case No. 118/2005 under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of this Rs.25,000.00, half of the amount is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased."

pp. 559–560, margin B

5

By the impugned order, the said conviction and sentences were confirmed by the High Court.

p. 560, margin B

6

Since this Court issued notice only to clarify the sentence awarded by the trial Judge, there is no need to go into all the factual details. We are not inclined to modify the sentence. However, considering the fact that the trial Judge has awarded life sentence for an offence under Section 302, in view of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we make it clear that all the sentences imposed under the IPC, the Gangsters Act and the Arms Act are to run concurrently.

p. 560, margin C

7

While confirming the conviction, we clarify that all the sentences are to run concurrently. To this extent, the judgment of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court is modified.

p. 560, margin C

8

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.

p. 560, margin E