Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Kallu @ Brajesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 710 of 2012
Decided On : 31-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details concerning the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the incident reported and fir filed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. charges framed against the appellant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defence witnesses presented. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's inquiry into the nature of the deaths. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. post-mortem findings regarding injuries. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. assessment of witness reliability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. witness testimonies concerning the incident. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. witnesses discussed their proximity to the events. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. witness accounts and prosecution evidence. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 12. legal principles regarding witness credibility. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 13. comments on witness discrepancies and reliability. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 14. guidelines on conflict of ocular and medical evidence. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 15. assessment of the occurrence's nature. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 16. reflections on the plea of alibi. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 17. conviction alterations and legal principles discussed. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 18. discussion of evidentiary standards related to crime. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 19. clarifications on the non-recovery of the weapon. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 20. examination of weapons and their relevance. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 21. discussion on alternate charges and their application. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 22. conclusions regarding the actions of the accused. (Para 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 23. final observations and judgments rendered. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 24. discussion on criminal liability standards. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 25. final verdict and sentencing rationale. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 26. summary of the judgment. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 4-9-2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.181/2009, by which the appellant Kallu @ Brajesh Sharma has been convicted under Section 302 /149 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and under Section 148 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that 7 co-accused persons, namely Monu Sharma, Sonu Sharma, Kamlesh, Pejram, Mahesh @ Pappu, Rajesh and Bablesh were arrested and they were tried. All of them were convicted under Section 302 /149 (On two Counts), 307/149, 323/149 (On three Counts) and 148 of IPC. Cr.A. No. 938/2010, 940/2010 and 1031/2010 were filed by Monu Sharma, Sonu Sharma, Kamlesh, Prejram, Mahesh @ Pappu, and Rajesh whereas Cr.A. No.951/2010 was filed by Bablesh. Bablesh has died during the pendency of his appeal and accordingly, his appeal was dismissed as abated. Although Cr.A. Nos. 938/2010, 940/2010 and 1031/2010 have also been heard simultaneously, but since, the appellant was tried separately hence, the evidence in the case of the present Appellant cannot be read in favor or against co-accused Monu Sharma, Sonu Sharma, Kamlesh, Pejram, Mahesh @ Pappu and Rajesh, and vice versa, therefore, this appeal is being decided by a separate judgment.
3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Kaptan Singh, lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 27-4-2008, at about 15:00, on the allegations that at about 10:00 A.M., his uncle Darru Singh was beaten by Ramautar, Neeraj, Santosh, Guddu, Pejram, Rajesh, Sonu, Monu, Kamlesh and Mahesh, all residents of Gauram and Kallu Brahmin, Balu Brahmin and Moni, all residents of Bilav, on the question of fetching water from the hand-pump, and his utensils were thrown. They had also extended a threat to leave the village. Thereafter, his uncle came to his house and informed the entire incident and thereafter, he was lying under a Neem Tree. On that issue, at about 1:30 A.M., Ramautar with .12 bore dou
The court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if it is credible, while the application of Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention and ....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
: For bringing criminal activity of accused within meaning of Section 34 IPC, there must be specific overt act attributed to accused in attacking victim.
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
