IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Pargan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 1 & 4, Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos. 5, 6 & 9, Sri Vijay Shantam, Amicus Curiae and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 16.08.1985 whereby the Appellant No.1, Pargan Singh, Appellant no.2, Ram Murat Singh @ Sheo Murat Singh, Appellant No.3, Doctor Singh, Appellant No.4, Mangala Singh, Appellant No.5, Raj Nath Yadava, Appellant No.6, Sheshnath, Appellant No.7, Naresh, Appellant No.8, Ram Briksh, Appellant No.9, Param Hans, Appellant No.10, Amar Deo, Appellant No.11, Sobran, Appellant No.12, Bhorick and Appellant No.13, Bhukhal were convicted for the offences under Section 30 7 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No. 13, Bhukal was also convicted for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant No.
Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand
Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbrayanam v. State of A.P.
State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima
Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar
The conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intent to cause death, not necessarily severe injuries; intent can be inferred from circumstances and actions during the incident.
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....
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused in a criminal act may be deduced from circumstances and the nature of injuries caused, and it is not essential th....
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
The reliability of the injured eye-witnesses' testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
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.