Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, G.S. AHLUWALIA, JJ.
Pintu alias Vinod Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2008
Decided On : 01-12-2017
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302, 294, 341, 506 Part II of I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 302, 294, 341, 506 Part II of I.P.C. - The court discussed the nature of the injuries, witness testimonies, and legal precedents to determine the guilt of the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 294, 341, 506 Part II of I.P.C. for causing gun shot injury to the deceased, threatening witnesses, and preventing the lodging of a police report. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. Witness testimonies and forensic evidence were presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of I.P.C. The court rejected the appellant's claim of sudden and grave provocation, concluding that the appellant's intentional actions led to the deceased's death.
Issues: The issues included determining the nature of the injuries, assessing witness testimonies, and establishing the appellant's intent and culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and legal precedents to establish the appellant's guilt under Section 302 of I.P.C. The court rejected the appellant's claim of sudden and grave provocation.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's sentence of life imprisonment was upheld.
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 5-5-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 174/2006 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 294, 341, 506 Part II of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, simple imprisonment of 2 months, simple imprisonment of 1 month and rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 25-3-2006, at about 10 P.M., the complainant Ram Kishore was in his house. The appellant came there along with his 12 bore single barrel licensed gun and asked for C.D. The complainant replied that the T.V. has been taken by Jaiveer Singh and C.D. has been kept inside the house by his father. On hearing the reply of the complainant, the appellant started abusing the complainant. The deceased objected to it, then the appellant with an intention to kill Surendra Singh, fired a gun shot causing injury in the stomach of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. The appellant thereafter again fired two gun shots and threatened that no one should go to lodge the F.I.R. and sat on the road. As a result of which the complainant could not go to the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. In the morning, an information was given to the S.H.O., on telephone. The police party came to the village. Dehati Nalishi Ex. P.6 was lodged by the complainant and F.I.R. Ex. P.18 was lodged. The offence was registered. The appellant was arrested. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 294, 341 of I.P.C.
3. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 506 Part II, 341, and 294 of I.P.C.
4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution examined Dr. D.K. Pandeya (P.W.1), Pratap Bhan Khanna (P.W.2), Head Constable Raghvendra Singh (P.W.3), Dr. C.R. Raje (P.W.4), Anandswaroop Shrivastava (P.W.5), Ramkishore Singh Bhadoriya (P.W.6), Head Constable Indrapal Singh (P.W.7), Harikishore @ Guddu (P.W.8), Constable Dharmendra Singh (P.W.9), S.I. P.S.Parmar (P.W.10), Jagdish Singh (P.W.11), S.I. Shailendra Singh (P.W.12) and Head Constable Brijraj Singh (PW-13). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 5-5-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 174/2006, convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 294, 341, 506 Part II of I.P.C.
7. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court , it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, the incident is alleged to have taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation. The appellant is alleged to have fired a single gun shot because of sudden and grave provocation. At the most, the act of the appellant would be an offence under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and the appellant is in jail from the date of arrest and has undergone near about 11 years of actual jail sentence.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the appellant went to the house of the complainant and demanded for C.D. When the complainant informed that his father (Deceased) has kept the C.D. inside the house, then without there being any provocation, the appellant started hurling abuses. When the act of the appellant was objected by Surendra Singh (deceased), then a gun shot was fired causing injury in the stomach of the deceased. The deceased immediately fell down. Thereafter the appellant not only restrained the complainant from lodging the Police Report but also did not allow them to shift the deceased to a Hospital and sat on the road and in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
