Back
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Ramji Lal Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution case and trial court findings. (Para 3) |
| 3. high court's reasoning for acquittal. (Para 4) |
| 4. final ruling restoring trial court judgment. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2006, by which, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has acquitted respondent No. 1 and 2 herein-original accused No. 1 and 3, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, by giving benefit of doubt, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the prosecution case sometime prior to 8:30 in the morning of 17.01.2002, one Devendra, son of Bhagirath, brother of deceased Munshilal, went to the house of accused Ramjilal for demanding money for grinding of wheat in the flour mill and accused persons Mukesh (A4) and Brijesh (A3) met him. When Devendra demanded money, then, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 assaulted him with kicks and punches. Somehow, he rescued himself. The said incident was broug
The court clarified that common intention among multiple offenders suffices for liability, regardless of individual actions substantiated by the evidence.
Common intention – Once it has been established and proved by prosecution that all accused came at place of incident with a common intention to kill deceased and as such, they shared common intention....
The High Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability, and medical evidence should support rather than contradict eyewitness accounts.
The judgment emphasizes the need for comprehensive appreciation of evidence and the limited scope for interference in acquittal judgments.
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the common intention of the accused nos.1 and 3 to kill the deceased, and the c....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
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
