Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0045Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 5 December 2011
Mahesh Babu vs State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of UP Police Sub-Inspector Mahesh Babu and upheld his conviction for murdering Delhi Police constable with his service revolver near Old Delhi railway station on 9 November 1992. The Court held eyewitness testimony and a ballistic match between the bullets in the body and the appellant's service revolver proved the intentional firing of four shots, rejecting the plea that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for want of sudden fight or heat of passion. It upheld the sentences of life imprisonment with Rs 1,000 fine under Section 302 IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs 1,000 fine under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to run concurrently, and ordered the appellant taken into custody. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 5 December 2011 in Crl.A. No. 258 of 1997, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Veena Birbal, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Mahesh Babu (Sub-Inspector).
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0018
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No. 258 of 1997 / (2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Veena Birbal, JJ.), 5 December 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Mahesh Babu (Sub-Inspector)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is absolutely clear that the appellant wanted to finish constable and he succeeded in doing so.” (at para 13)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Delhi High Court judgment dated 5 December 2011 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“It is absolutely clear that the appellant wanted to finish constable and he succeeded in doing so.” (para 13)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
5 Dec 2011
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.