RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Sentences imposed for offences under IPC, Gangsters Act and Arms Act to run concurrently pursuant to Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya; Respondent: State of Uttarakhand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Disposal at Supreme Court After High Court Affirmation
Outcome
Appeal disposed of with clarification; conviction and sentence affirmed, sentences to run concurrently.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Concurrent Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Concurrent Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya

Appellant

State of Uttarakhand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Disposal at Supreme Court After High Court Affirmation

  1. 1 Whether sentences imposed for convictions under IPC, Gangsters Act and Arms Act should run concurrently

Ratio Decidendi

Sentences imposed for offences under IPC, Gangsters Act and Arms Act to run concurrently pursuant to Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of with clarification; conviction and sentence affirmed, sentences to run concurrently.

Orders

  • All sentences imposed under IPC, Gangsters Act, and Arms Act are to run concurrently.
  • Judgment of trial Court as affirmed by High Court is modified to this extent.