Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Dhula Ram – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellants Dhula Ram, Varda Ram and Banshi Lal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.39/2017 (387/2015) whereby, they were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year?s simple imprisonment.
Facts in brief:-
2. Raju Ram Gameti (PW-4) submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur on 27.08.2015 at 1:30 a.m. alleging inter alia that on the previous night at about 9:30 p.m., he along with his mother Smt. Panki Bai, wife Smt.Suarti Bai and sister Vasani were sitting at their house, waiting for his father Shri Shanker Lal, who was scheduled to return home on that day. While they were waiting for Shanker Lal, they heard noise of a quarrel from outside the house of Dhula Ram, on which, they rushed to that direction and saw that his father Shanker Lal was being assaulted by Dhula Ram, Vardha Rama and Banshi Lal, Residents of Gundali Falla Laka Kolra
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....
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.
Point of law : Admittedly according to the prosecution's own case Ran Singh and Rattan Singh were carrying lathies which could be described as hard and blunt object. Such injuries on the person of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused in a criminal act may be deduced from circumstances and the nature of injuries caused, and it is not essential th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
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 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....
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
