MOHD.BABBAN vs THE STATE(DELHI ADMN.) DELHI THROUGH ITS LAW SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 93/2011

Case under Section II-D. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010152562010

Filing Date

10-May-2010

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 93/2011

Diary Number

15256/2010

Order Date

23-Feb-2023

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Appeals Allowed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-D

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD.BABBAN

    Adv. SHALLY BHASIN[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE(DELHI ADMN.) DELHI THROUGH ITS LAW SECRETARY

    Adv. B. V. BALARAM DAS (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] GURMEET SINGH MAKKER[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Feb-2023

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 23-Feb-2023

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath

  4. 27-Feb-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 27-Feb-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 25-Apr-2014
  7. 17-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 19-Oct-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 10-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 06-Dec-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 09-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 10-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 93/2011

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.A. No. 93/2011 - Mohd. Babban v. State (Delhi Admin.) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants on February 23, 2023. Originally, five accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 304 Part-I IPC for causing death, sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one accused but downgraded the others' conviction to Section 304 Part-II, maintaining the 7-year sentence. The Supreme Court found material contradictions in the key witness (deceased's widow) testimony, noted the appellants' role was an "improvement" not mentioned in original police statements, and concluded that due to family enmity, false implication couldn't be ruled out. The Court quashed both the High Court and Trial Court convictions, held appellants not guilty on benefit of doubt, and discharged their bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case