Back
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, ROHIT B. DEO
Prem, s/o. Sudam Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through P. S. O. Pusad Rural, Dist. – Yavatmal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. By this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad (learned Judge below) in Sessions Trial Case No.59/2015 whereby trial court convicted the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are also convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The Appellants are also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The Appellants are further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 203 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine Rs.500/- by each of them and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Lear
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
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
