JOAO @ BADGI FERNANDES vs STATE OF GOA — Crl.A. No. 473/2004

Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010056262004

Filing Date

11-Mar-2004

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 473/2004

Diary Number

5626/2004

Order Date

15-Feb-2012

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JOAO @ BADGI FERNANDES

    Adv. MITTER & MITTER CO.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GOA

    Adv. A. SUBHASHINI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 21-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 27-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 16-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 16-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 04-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 21-Jul-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 12-Jul-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 08-Apr-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 29-Mar-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Mar-2004

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 473/2004

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Joao @ Badgi Fernandes v. State of Goa Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on February 15, 2012. The Court upheld the High Court's conviction of appellant Joao @ Badgi Fernandes under IPC Section 304 Part II (causing death by act endangering life) with five years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 2,000 fine, and Rs. 10,000 compensation to the deceased's widow. Facts: On May 10, 2001, the appellant and co-accused stabbed Ajay Pal Singh outside his residence in Goa, causing fatal injuries to his right thigh. The appellant was acquitted by the Sessions Court but the High Court partially allowed the State's appeal, convicting him under Section 304 Part II (rejecting charges under Sections 302/307). Court's Reasoning: The Supreme Court found credible witness testimony identifying the appellant carrying a knife, along with recovered evidence and the appellant's inability to explain his presence at the crime scene. No perversity in evidence appreciation warranted interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case