Back
Tefa Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Appeal No. 1339 of 2018 has been filed by accused-appellants Tefa Ram and Basant Ram against the judgement and order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Ballia, in ST No. 111 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2012 (State vs. Tefa Ram and another), whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants Tefa Ram and Basant Ram to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-each under Sections 304/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo one year imprisonment; six months’ RI under Section 323/34 IPC; one year RI under Section 504 IPC and three years RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/-under Section 506 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo two months’ imprisonment. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The informant/victim has not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.
3. The complainant Parvesh Yadav has filed appeal (Appeal No. 40 of 2020), against the same judgement and order dated 16.2.2018, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of
Point of Law : Section 34 does not create a substantive offence. The vicarious or constructive liability under Section 34 IPC can arise only when two conditions stand fulfilled, i.e., the mental elem....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate evidence.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 can arise spontaneously during the commission of an act, and upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of common intention in a criminal assault case, considering the nature of injuries, weapons used, and the formation of common ....
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
