SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(MP) 804

J.G.CHITRA
RAMCHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S.KUTUMBALE, K.K.GUPTA

J. C. CHITRE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are taking exceptions to the charge which has been framed against them by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No. 108/90. By the charge applicant Kalu Sb Gopal has been charged for an offence punishable u/s 307 simplicitor. However, applicants 1 and 2 namely Ramchandra Sb Shrilal and Kesharsingh Sb Kaniram have been charged for committing an offence punishable u/s. 307, 326 r/w 34 of I. P. C.

( 2 ) SHRI A. S Kutumble, counsel for the petitioners argued that the F. I. R. and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, are abundantly taking it clear that the intention of the applicants was to commit an offence u/s 326 of I. P. C either simplicitor or read with Sec. 34 of I. P. C. There was absolutely no need of framing of charge against the petitioners for an offence punishable u/s 307 of I. P. C. He made reference to F. I. R. and statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation for substantiating his arguments. Countering to that, Shri K. K. Gupta learned Govt. Advocare submitted that the charge for offence punishable u/s 307 either simplicitor or nw 34 I. P. C, is justified by mater











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top