Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Salim S/o Abdul Razak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 02.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.25/90 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 IPC and sentenced for three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced for three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7 days’ simple imprisonment.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No.4 – Mst. Gheesi W/o Abdul Razak died and the appeal preferred on her behalf was abated vide order dated 22.11.2020.
3. Brief facts of the case are that P
The judgment establishes the principle that the intention to cause death can be inferred from various circumstances, leading to different convictions under the Indian Penal Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of common intention in a criminal assault case, considering the nature of injuries, weapons used, and the formation of common ....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that sudden altercations without premeditated intent can lower the charge under IPC.
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
