RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL
Lalaram – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Renu Agarwal, J.
1. Present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, Lalaram, against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 586 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh and another arising out of Crime No. 160 of 2001, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; Sessions Trial No. 587 of 2001 : State Vs. Suresh, arising out of Crime No. 162 of 2001, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; and Sessions Trial No. 588 of 2001: State Vs. Lalaram, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, police station Sandila, district Hardoi, whereby the appellant, Lalaram, was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, failing which to undergo additional 18 months' rigorous imprisonment; under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo additional 8 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which to undergo 9 months' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section Section 3/25 of the A
Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra : (2015) 6 SCC 1
Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 15 SCC 635
Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar : (2013) 9 SCC 516
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 I.P.C. for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies is an unfortunate yet prevalent practice in our nation and it must be stopped.
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
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....
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.