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

BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER. versus RESHAMPAL SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
22 November 2006
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 303 · 2006 INSC 883

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 24.10.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 616-DB of2001.

pp. 303–304, margin G

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 304, margin A

The trial court by its judgment dated 18.10.200 I convicted accused · Resham Pal Singh and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court while affirming the conviction has reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court has further directed the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court also maintained the sentence of imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant had to undergo further RI for a period of two months. The amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, if realized from the appellant was directed to be paid to Harpreet Singh, who has lost his parents.

p. 304, margin A

In these two appeals the prayer was to enhance the punishment to death sentence .

p. 304, margin D

. We have gone through the evidence and have considered the facts of the case.

p. 304, margin D

. In our opinion, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court .. The question of sentence has been considered by the High Court in detail in paragraph 36 of its judgment and, therefore, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court stands upheld. N.J. Appeals dismissed.

p. 304, margin E

,.,

p. 304, margin F