Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J.VORA, P.M.RAVAL
Popatsinh Kalusinh Makwana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused Popatsinh Kalusinh Makwana – original accused no. 1, is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2004, by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 30 days additional imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on 17.05.2003 at village : Fatehpur marriage function was organized by villager Shivsinh Waghsinh. In the said marriage, one Bhaktisinh Kodarsinh was invited and he had attended the marriage. After marriage ceremony, Bhaktisinh Kodarsinh invited by the complainant PW-1 Bapusinh for refreshment at his home. The son-in-law of Bapusinh PW-2 Kalusinh Parvatsinh was also there in the house of Bapusinh. During the discussion, the dispute arose on the identification of the caste of ‘Thakor’ between Kalusinh and Bhaktisinh. By intervention of PW-1 Ba
The conviction under Section 307 IPC was not sustainable due to insufficient evidence of intent to kill, leading to modification to Section 324 IPC.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The conviction for attempt to murder was upheld based on sufficient evidence, while the sentences were reduced for being excessive.
Court finds alteration of conviction from S.307 to S.308 IPC justified due to nature of injuries and circumstances of the case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mens rea for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the interpretation of the nature of the injury in determining the ap....
The court affirmed that assault with intent to kill constitutes attempt to murder, and victim’s testimony is sufficient to establish guilt even without independent witnesses.
The court confirmed the conviction under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC, establishing that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the attack, even if the victim survives.
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
