Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Girdhari Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:
2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.27/95 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Girdhari Singh), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, was ordered to undergo further 6 months R.I. |
3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 02.09.1995 at around 9:40 p.m., one Sultan Singh (complainant, since deceased) had submitted a report (Ex.P-3) before the Police Station, Kalyanpur stating that on the said date, at around 4:00 p.m., in front of his house, he was sitting with one Badar Ji in Badar Ji Pole, and at t
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction must be based on clear and convincing evidence, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction.
The judgment reinforces the principle that prior enmity and the nature of the attack can establish intent in murder cases, leading to a conviction under Section 302 IPC despite arguments for lesser c....
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
A conviction under IPC requires reliable evidence and cannot solely rely on weapon recovery or forensic reports when eyewitnesses turn hostile.
The principle of parity in criminal law mandates that co-accused with similar evidence should receive consistent verdicts, preventing arbitrary distinctions in convictions.
The essential ingredient of motive/intention under Section 302 IPC must be established to convict a person for the offence of murder.
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insuffic....
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof require that the prosecution must establish intent and sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
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
