Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, MADHU JAIN
Ajay – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of the incident leading to the charges. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. judgment on trial court's findings. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 3. appellant's argument challenging eyewitness credibility. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35) |
| 4. court's analysis of culpability and intent. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 49 , 51) |
| 5. final sentencing decision based on prior incarceration. (Para 54 , 56 , 60 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415 (2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (herein afters ‘ BNSS ’) has been preferred by the Appellant assailing the order of conviction dated 26th April, 2025 and the order on sentence dated 6th May, 2025, passed by the ld. Court of Sessions in FIR No. 264/2015, Police Station Subzi Mandi, titledState v. Ajay. The ld. Trial court vide the Impugned Order, has convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Rakesh, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. The Appellant has been grant
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, ruling that the appellant's act was committed in the heat of passion without premeditation, thus constituting culpable homicide not amoun....
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the appellant's act was committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cr....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
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
