Back
RAJIV GUPTA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Ashok – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta, J.
1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal, Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned AGA for the State, Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-respondent-Raju, Shri Harshit Gupta, holding brief of Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the accused respondent-Kalloo and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal appeal as well as government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.1984 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1983 (State of U.P. Vs. Ashok and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 1982, Police Station Harbans Mohal, District Kanpur, by which the accused-appellant Ashok has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment, whereas accused-respondents Raju, Kalloo and Chander have been acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
3. Since the basic facts, issues and the judgment of the trial court are similar and common, both criminal appeal as well as government appeal have been clubbed and heard together and the same are being decided by the common judg
Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be established through evidence of participation in the crime, even without prior planning, as demonstrated by the credible testimony of an eyewitness.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
The court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Conviction for murder and attempt to murder upheld based on credible eyewitness accounts, despite minor discrepancies, while acquitting one appellant due to insufficient evidence of participation.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
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
