Back
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
T. K. Lakshmi Narasimhamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Nawaz, J. - This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 against their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appeal against appellant No.1 has been dismissed as abated.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the evidence and material on record.
3. The charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2012, passed in S.C.No.229/2011, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the charges leveled against them under Sections 324, 506, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted under Section 323 read with Section34 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.12.2010 at about 9.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 along with a juvenile in conflict wit
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused, leading to their acquittal under Section 323 IPC due to insufficient evidence and the benefit of doubt.
The evidence of injured witnesses is crucial and can be the basis for conviction, but intent to kill must be established for serious charges like attempted murder under Section 307.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
Important Point : The court upheld the conviction for simple injuries under IPC, emphasizing the consistency of witness testimonies while extending probation to certain accused based on gender and ag....
The reliability of injured witnesses' testimony and medical reports can establish guilt despite inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Point of law : Law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact
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
