Back
SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Sitaram Kuchhbedia – Appellant
Versus
Vimal Rana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 19th July, 2010, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] in Criminal Appeal Nos. 745 and 774 of 2006, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused, namely, Roop Singh, Mukesh Gujar S/o Phool Singh, Pintu @ Jitendra Kumar, Ajju @ Ajay Singh, Baddu @ Badda, Vimal Rana, Dhanraj, Kehari Singh, Parath Singh, Meharban Singh, Phool Singh, Durjan Gujar, Paggal @ Bal Kishan, Bhagwan Gujar, Prakash Gujar, Mukesh Gujar s/o Rustom Gujar, Gudda @ Meharban, Malkhan Singh, Pappu @ Pushpendra Gujar.
3. The accused persons were put to trial before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur2 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”] in Special Case No. 51 of 2004. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 7th April, 2006, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code3 [For short ‘IPC’] and Sections 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and were sentenced in the terms set out below:
| Sections | |||
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When repeated blows are inflicted on parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain damage a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the application of Sections 141, 143, 144, 146, and 149 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the constitution of an unlawful assembly and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 of IPC.
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court clarified that mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not imply guilt for murder unless direct involvement in the act causing death is established.
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
