Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Devendra Shukla @ Mantu – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per: Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2018, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2015 (State Vs. Devendra Shukla @ Mantu & Ors.), under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2015, Police Station – Sungarhi, District – Pilibhit; Sessions Trial Nos.200 of 2015 (State Vs. Rahul Shukla Alias Rinku), 201 of 2015 (State Vs. Devendra Shukla @ Mantu), 202 of 2015 (State Vs. Mahesh Shukla), under Section 4/25 Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime Nos.530 of 2015, 531 of 2015, 532 of 2015, Police Station – Sungarhi, District – Pilibhit; whereby the accused appellants Devendra Shukla @ Mantu, Rahul Shukla Alias Rinku and Mahesh Shukla have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC; sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC; sentenced to three years rigorous impr
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of premeditated intent and the nature of the incident as a sudden altercation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimony of injured witnesses is given significant weight in murder cases.
The court established that the act of the accused was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation.
The court held that the accused lacked intent to kill, resulting in conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration in criminal cases, and the reasonableness of delayed recording of police statements.
Point of Law : Related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being the relative of the victim. The scrutiny of evidence of related witness should be more caution.
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
