Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL
Lalchand S/o Chhoturam – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case outlined. (Para 2) |
| 2. accused-appellants' defense arguments presented. (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution's rebuttal and evidence discussed. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis and observations on evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. judgment and legal conclusions drawn. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 62/2016 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalchand and Ors. ), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Accused-appellant: Palaram
| Conviction u/s. | Sentence & Fine | In Default of payment of fine further undergo |
| 302 of I.P.C. | Life Imprisonment alongwith Fine of Rs.20,000/- | One Year’s additional simple imprisonment |
| 323 of I.P.C. | Six Month’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.1000/- | Fifteen days additional simple imprisonment |
| 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST (Preve |
The court established that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the role of consistent eyewitness testimony and the significance of corroborative evidence in affirming....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 ....
The reliability of the injured eye-witnesses' testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
Point of Law : Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Conviction confirmed - Where there is ample, unimpeachable ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, non recovery of weapon of offence does n....
To attract the applicability of section 34 of the IPC the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which requires a prearranged plan.In the absence of a p....
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
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
