Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Ishab – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated 7.12.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No.47/1985; State of Rajasthan v. Ishab and Ors. whereby, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Accused-appellant Ishab:
1. Under Section 304 Part-I IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100; in default thereof, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.
2. Under Section 307 /34 IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100; in default thereof, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.
3. Under Section 323 /34 IPC: 1 month simple imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Nabbu:
1. Under Section 304 Part-I IPC read with Section 34 IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100; in default thereof, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.
2. Under Section 307 /34 IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100; in default thereof, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.
3. Under Section 323 IPC: 1 month simple imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Jumrat:
1. Under Section 304 Part-I IPC read with Section 34 IPC:
The court emphasized that the burden of proving the right to private defence need not be established by the defence beyond all reasonable doubt, and rejected the appellants' plea of right to private ....
The main legal point established is the requirement for a fair and impartial investigation, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the exercise of the right of private defence in cases of alterc....
The court affirmed the right to private defense in property disputes, ruling that actions taken by the accused were justified under IPC provisions, thus overturning their conviction.
The court affirmed that the appellants exceeded their right of private defence due to their superior strength and armed status, justifying the conviction.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while individuals have the right to private defence of their property, causing death in excess of this right constitutes an offence under the ....
The right of private defense may absolve liability, particularly when injuries to the accused are unexplained, indicating a critical deficiency in the prosecution's case.
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
