Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
DINESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PRAJAPATI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for enhancing the sentence imposed upon the respondent vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Main Court), Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2008. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 506(2) and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the BP Act, and consequently, sentenced him as under:
| Section under IPC | Imprisonment | Fine (Amount) | In default of payment of fine |
| 307 | RI for three years | 2000.00 | RI for one month |
| 452 | RI for one year | 2000.00 | RI for fifteen days |
| 506(2) | RI for six months | 100.00 | SI for five days |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2009 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-accused under section 37
The emotional state of the accused, stemming from a tumultuous love relationship, justified a reduction in sentence, emphasizing a humane approach in sentencing.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to establish clear evidence or motive results in acquittal.
To establish an offense under Section 307 IPC, proof of intent to kill is required; a single injury does not suffice to conclude such intent, allowing for conviction under Section 326 IPC instead.
The intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by i....
It is true that investigation of a criminal case may be faulty inasmuch as Investigating Officer may not seize the blood stained wearing apparel of victim or that he failed to send offending weapon f....
Point of law : Only one blow given by the appellant on the head of the deceased which appears to have been given with full force. Furthermore, the act was committed without premeditation in a sudden ....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
Court emphasized that personal vendetta not motivated by caste does not support charges under SC & ST Act; conviction modified from grievous to simple injury under IPC based on nature of the injuries....
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
