Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Virendra Kumar Chamar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The appellant is accused no.3. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). One Jaggilal, a brother of the deceased Harilal, was the complainant. He is the first informant. He stated that on 20th June, 2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was conversing with one Mohan Lal at around 6:30 p.m. At that time, accused nos.1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and the present appellant, holding a knife in his hand, came there with the intention of killing the deceased. Accused nos.1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal entered Mevalal’s house. He was shouting. The three accused, while chasing him, entered Mevalal’s house and again fired pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife.
2. PW1—Ram Sumer is another brother of the deceased who also claims to be an eyewitness. We may note here that Jaggilal, another brother of the deceased who had filed the complaint, died before the trial started. The appellant's conviction is based on evidence of PW1 Ram Sumer.
3. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing
(1) It is possible to form a common intention just before or during occurrence.(2) When evidence of eyewitnesses is of sterling quality, adverse inference need not be drawn – Quality is more importan....
Failure of prosecution to examine independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant in a murder case.
Murder – Only because an eye witness is a member of deceased's family, per se, evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded – If evidence of an eyewitness who is a close relative of deceased is cog....
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When prosecution alleges that a particular person has committed offence, it is duty of prosecution to establish identity of accused as the person who has c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, based on the premeditated and intentional nature of the act leading to the homicidal death ....
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated evidence and the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts to establish guilt under Section 302....
Evidence must unequivocally establish both the act and the intent for murder; minor discrepancies do not warrant overturning a conviction if the core facts are substantiated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
