Back
SANDEEP MEHTA
Darshan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya in Sessions Case No. 19/2018 (CIS No.38/2018) whereby, the application preferred by the respondent No.2 complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was accepted and the petitioners herein were summoned to face trial alonwith the charge-sheeted accused for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 326 and 143 IPC.
2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioners Shri Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Manish Dadhich learned counsel representing the complainant, and have gone through the impugned order and the challan papers.
3. The investigating officer, after concluding investigation, filed challan only against the accused Sardul Singh whereas the other accused were exonerated. On going through the challan papers and the statement of the witnesses examined at trial, it is clear that the incident took place all of a sudden when the injured Dilip Kumar tried to block the rain water entering into his house by erecting a mud wall. It is alleged that the accused
The necessity of establishing common intention and unlawful assembly for liability under specific IPC sections was reaffirmed, highlighting the importance of these elements in criminal proceedings.
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the....
The delay in filing the complaint, inconclusive medical opinion, and contradictions in witness depositions can reduce the gravity of the alleged offence and raise the possibility of false implication....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on overwhelming evidence to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of the judgment o....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; lack of consistent evidence and contradictions in testimony justify upholding an acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; in the absence of direct evidence implicating the petitioner, acquittal is warranted.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.
The prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence, including the absence of a post-mortem report, resulted in the acquittal of the appellants from murder charges under the Indian Penal Code.
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
