Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Ram Bhaj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing No.CRA-D-248-DB-2005 titled as Ram Bhaj & others versus State of Haryana and CRA-263-DB-2005 titled as Sanjay & Another Versus State of Haryana as the same are arising out of the same FIR. However, for the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRA-D-248-DB-2005.
2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
3. Sanjay (appellant in CRA-D-263-DB-2005) has passed away and therefore, the proceedings qua him stand abated.
4. The FIR was registered on 06.03.2004, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak is dated 02.03.2005, the appeals were filed on 04.04.2005/21.03.2005 and the matter is being taken up for hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 20 ^ years from the date of registration of the FIR.
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.03.2004, at about 9.00 a.m a V.T. Message Ex.P31 was received at Police Post, Kansala, regarding admission of injured Tale Ram, resident of village Pakasma (since deceased), whereupon
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....
Accused's claim of self-defence not properly considered by the trial court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and violation of fair trial principles.
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 affirmed that corroborative eyewitness testimony and medical evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the absence of the murder weapon.
Point of Law : A wife, who has seen an assailant giving fatal blows with a stick to her husband, would name the assailant to all present and to the police at an earliest opportunity.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's assault with a deadly weapon, causing grievous injuries to the victim, demonstrated the intention and knowledge to commit murd....
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
