Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, Gurvinder Singh Gill
Tek Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Tek Chand, Neki Ram, Ganesha, Surta, Veerbhan, Parkash, Shishpal @ Sainsi, Nanu Ram, Krishan and Nafe Singh @ Nafiya preferred this appeal assailing judgment dated 10.2.2005 and order dated 12.2.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. However, Tek Chand and Ganesha having expired, the proceedings qua them stand abated. The trial Court while holding them guilty imposed sentence as under:-
Section | Sentence |
302 IPC | To undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months |
324 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months |
323 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months |
325 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months |
148 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months |
2. The matter arises out of FIR No. 116, dated 02.07.2002, Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal, under Sections 148 , 302, 323, 324, 325, 149 IPC (Ex.PA/1), lodged on the statement/ruqa (Ex.PA) of complainant Ram Kala son of Mangat Ram. The translated gist of the FIR
The court emphasizes the primacy of ocular testimony over medical evidence in assessing culpability in assault and murder cases, reinforcing the need for a clear understanding of individual roles in ....
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 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....
Murder - Conviction - Appellatn murdered deceased with a deadly weapon i.e. countrymade pistol, which was his individual act and he is responsible for the same, hence, he is convicted for the offence....
The court established that mere presence at a crime scene does not imply liability for murder without clear evidence of intent and participation.
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.
In cases involving a large number of assailants, it may be difficult for witnesses to attribute specific roles to each assailant, and minor discrepancies in the statements of rustic villagers may not....
Conviction modified - Offence of Murder - Injured witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had received injuries of blunt object, which were caused by accused-appellants with Lathis and Dandas but injuries w....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the individual liability of the accused appellants for their acts during the incident, as well as the requirement of clear and cogent evidence to e....
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
