SANJEEV KUMAR CHOPRA vs STATE OF PUNJAB — Crl.A. No. 504/2013

Case under Section II-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010076192013

Filing Date

04-Mar-2013

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 504/2013

Diary Number

7619/2013

Order Date

01-Aug-2018

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJEEV KUMAR CHOPRA

    Adv. DEBASIS MISRA (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

    Adv. JASPREET GOGIA[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Aug-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 01-Aug-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  4. 31-Jul-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 31-Jul-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  6. 23-Jul-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 03-Jul-2014
  8. 22-Jul-2013
  9. 01-Jul-2013
  10. 22-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 04-Mar-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 504/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Crl.A. No. 504/2013 - Sanjeev Kumar Chopra v. State of Punjab The Supreme Court dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Chopra's appeal on August 1, 2018, upholding his conviction under IPC Sections 458/459/460 (burglary/theft) and affirming the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The Court found the prosecution's case credible, particularly relying on witness Gurdeep Kaur's categorical identification of the accused and her clear identification of stolen gold jewelry and a wrist watch as belonging to her. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments challenging the witness's credibility and held that the prosecution successfully established the accused's identity and the recovered items' ownership. The accused having completed his sentence, he was entitled to release from custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case