Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Parvat S/o Haru Bhil – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) [in short Cr.P.C.] against the judgment dated 03.09.2013, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sardarpur, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) in S.T. No.159/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 449 and 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 02 months and Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 03 months each respectively.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that:
(i) On 21.12.2011 at about 20:30 hours, when Complainant- Sunil, who was a minor boy aged about 8 years and was residing with his grand parents in Village- Chalani Mata, was studying in his grandmother's room in the light of diya and his grandfather Maan Singh was sleeping in the adjacent room, he heard screams coming out from his grandfather's room. He went to his grandfather's room and saw the appellants Parvat and Kailash giving axe blows on the head of his grandfather. He
Point of law: If direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; eyewitness testimony, even from related witnesses, can sustain conviction when corroborated by credible evidence.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
The court established that culpable homicide not amounting to murder was committed due to a land dispute, substantiated by witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the importance of circumstantial ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated evidence and the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts to establish guilt under Section 302....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
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
