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

SANGARABOINA SREENU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided
23 April 1997
Judges listed
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 957 · 1997 INSC 431
Also cited as
  • (1997) 5 SCC 348 (33 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(CRI) 690 (6 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 3233 (3 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0816/1997 (3 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SCW 3290 (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.

Cited by

Cited in 8 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

p. 957, margin F

This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC - which was the only charge framed against him - the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is tried but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.

pp. 957–958, margin G

For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 958, margin B