Back
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Lakeshwar Yadav, S/o. Tarju Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
By way of present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants have been convicted by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasaund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 23/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 459/34, 397 and 392 IPC and Section 25(1) (B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- u/s. 459/34; to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 397; to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 392 IPC and to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 25(1)(B)(a) thee Arms Act, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. However, the appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant namely Meghnath Patel has lodged a complaint at police station Basna alleging that on 11.01.2020, at about 3.00 pm. when h
The actual user of a deadly weapon during a robbery is solely liable under Section 397 IPC, while others involved may face lesser charges if not directly implicated.
Use of weapon to constitute offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that ‘offender’ should actually fire from firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but mere exhibition of same,....
The court clarified that for conviction under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution must prove grievous injury and involvement of five persons, which was not established in this case.
The broad interpretation of the use of weapons in armed robbery under Section 397 of IPC, emphasizing that the mere display of a weapon or any action inducing fear in the victim's mind is sufficient ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence under Section 397 IPC, the victim must have noticed the deadly weapon used by the offender to establish the element of 'use of....
For conviction under dacoity, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt with corroborative evidence; mere identity of accused is insufficient without direct involvement in the crime.
The prosecution must prove possession of arms and intent to kill for convictions under Sections 121 and 307 IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Convictions for conspiracy and robbery under specific IPC sections were challenged due to unreliable evidence and identified inconsistencies.
Conviction for attempted murder requires intent or knowledge of causing fatal injury, corroborated by witness and medical evidence, despite the victim’s hostility.
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
