Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Rinku @ Amrish – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the appellant-accused Rinku @ Amrish, against the Judgment and order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, P.C. Act, Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 1062 of 2014 (State Vs. Rinku @ Amrish), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2014, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, wherein he has been convicted for the commission of offences under Section 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and, in default, further imprisonment for six months.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded through the evidences adduced during the Trial, is succinctly narrated as under:
2.1) The complainant/P.W.-1, Smt. Satvindar Kaur, (wife of the deceased, Shri Gurpreet Singh Sethi), was running a boutique under the name and style of ‘Simiran Boutique’ situated on Natkheda Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station K
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of specific requirements to invoke the exception, such as ....
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the application of legal provisions in establishing guilt and justifying the conviction and sentence.
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
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
