Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Ram Krishna Vaishya @ Chotu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station City Kotwali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 3.8.2005 passed by learned VIIIth Additional District Sessions Judge, (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 35/2002, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 450 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| U/s 307 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year. |
| U/s. 307/34 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year. (All the sentences are directed to run concurrently). |
2. The case of prosecution is that complainant Sunita Tiwari (P.W./13) who was residing at Lala Kashyap Colony where she was running beauty parlour. On 29.10.2001 at about 8.45 in the night when she was taking tea along with Suchcha Nand Wadhwani (P.W./18) in her house, at that time appellant Ram Krishna Vaishya @ Chhotu who is known to the victim resident of Jarhabhata entered into the house
Injured witness testimony is pivotal; convictions upheld under IPC Sections 307 and 450, with fines enhanced for victim compensation.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. 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....
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.
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
