Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Gopal Krishan – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of crime and police investigation. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's actions prompted charges of homicide on claims of self-defense. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments against framing the charge. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. counsel's representation and responses. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. judicial reasoning for framing charges. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. a summary of legal precedents asserting minimal reason requirement for charge framing. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. right of private defense not applicable. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. common intention and vicarious liability. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. charge framing is justified. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. conclusion: petitions dismissed. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The informant was going to his home on 06.08.2021. When he reached near the shop of Ashok Kumar, he saw the petitioner/accused moving with a gun. The accused was challenging the people to touch the fence and threatening them to shoot, in case, any person dared to touch the fence. Surjeet Singh etc. were standing near the fence. When Surjeet Singh reached near the fence, Gopal Krishan shot at him. Surjeet Singh suffered an injury on his chest and fell. The wife of Gopal Kri
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
