Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL
Ashok Chaudhary S/o Shri Hansaram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
1. Appellants-Ashok Chaudhary and Shankar Singh have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1182/2016 and Raju and Mahendra have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1119/2016 aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:
(ii) For offence under Section 323/34 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.
(iii) For offence under Section 324/34 IPC - 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment each.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.04.2011, Sualal (PW-2) along with his family members, namely, Heera, Devkaran and Mitthanlal lodged a written report (Exhibit-P/1) at Police Station Mangaliyawas, District A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception-4 of Section 300 of IPC and the consideration of the right to private defence in determining the appropriate convictio....
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court clarified the parameters for culpable homicide under Exception 4, Section 300 IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation.
The court ruled that injuries caused were not sufficient to lead to death, thus altering the conviction from culpable homicide to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC.
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the involvement of A.2, A.4, and A.5 in the crime, while sufficient evidence supported the conviction of A.1 for 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
