Common Law Method

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL

An Analysis of
Sonu

v.

State of M.P.

(MANU/MP/0088/2010)

Submitted by:-
Anugrah Pratap Singh Rajawat
Roll No. – 2010 B.A.LL.B. 11
Enrolment No. – A- 0961
1st Trimester
Table of contents
S. No. Page No. 1. Introduction…………………………………………… 3 2. Concrete facts of the Case…………………………… 4 3. Material facts of the Case…………………………….. 5 4. Immaterial facts of the Case………………………….. 6 5. Concrete Decision of the Case……………………….. 7 6. Generalisation of Concrete Facts…………………….. 8 7. Generalisation of Decision…………………………... 9 8. Ratio decidendi………………………………………. 10 9. Obiter Dictum………………………………………... 11

Introduction
An attempt has been made to do an analysis of the case “Sonu v. State of M.P.” (MANU/MP/0088/2010) in the parameters given below:-

* Concrete Facts of The Case * Material Facts of The Case * Immaterial Facts of The Case * Concrete Decision * Generalisation of The Concrete Facts * Generalisation The Concrete Decision * Ration Decidendi of The Case * Obiter Dicta (if any)

SONU
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(MANU/MP/0088/2010)
Indrani Datta, J
Concrete Facts of The Case: 1. Applicant and co-accused are facing Special Case No. 124/2002 in the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity) Gwalior for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. 2. In that Court Mamta was examined on 21.3.03 as prosecution witness and she is alleged to be eye-witness of the incident. 3. Thereafter, she submitted an affidavit on 31 .3.2010 in the trial court in favour of the present applicant and co-accused stating therein that when her statement was recorded on 21 .3.03 she was under pressure and she has not seen the incident of Vishnumangal's murder and she is not a witness of occurrence. 4. Thereafter, one application was preferred under Section 311 of CrPC by the present