Back
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Dallu – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Session Trial No. 544/1995 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- also with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution case, on a dispute regarding vacating the house, a quarrel took place between the accused/appellant and Bhajan Singh (PW-4) on 06.08.1995. On refusal to vacate the house by Bhajan Singh, the accused assaulted him with axe, resulting into injuries on his head, left eye and face. Thereafter, on intervention of Bedi Lal (PW-6), Milan Singh (PW-5) and Gopal, the accused ran away from the spot. An FIR was registered on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Medical Examination of the injured/complainant Bhajan Lal was also conducted by the police and performed by Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2). The axe was also seized by the police vide Ex.-P/4. The police has also prepared the spot map vide Ex.-P/2. After completing all other formalities, the police filed the charge-she
The court upheld the conviction based solely on one credible witness's testimony, affirming that quality of evidence is more critical than quantity in criminal cases.
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
To establish an offense under Section 307 IPC, proof of intent to kill is required; a single injury does not suffice to conclude such intent, allowing for conviction under Section 326 IPC instead.
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.
Intent to kill under Section 307 IPC necessitates specific evidence; absence of concrete proof results in acquittal for grievous intent while confirming lesser charges.
In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
The prosecution failed to prove the use of a dangerous weapon during the assault, thus reducing the charge from Section 324 IPC to Section 323 IPC due to inadequate corroborative evidence.
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
