Back
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
Dinesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. This criminal revision u/S 397 r/w 401 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners/accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Distt - Mandleshwar, in Cri. Appeal No.152/2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal and has set aside conviction and sentence and has remanded the case to frame appropriate charge and for the disposal of the case as per law. Appeal arising out of judgment dated 29.10.2021 in criminal case No.195/2014, wherein the learned trial Court had convicted the petitioners u/S 323 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 4,000/-(four counts) to each with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the case, in brief are that on 30.06.2014, at around 08:40 PM, the complainant Bhuwani Ram lodged a report stating that 3 months before the incident, accused Dinesh had given his boat to the complainant to row. On 30.06.2014, at around 08:15 PM, accused Dinesh had demanded back his boat on which accused Dinesh had abused him verbally and when the complainant asked to not abuse, th
The power of the Appellate Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and remand the case for framing of required charge and to conclude the case as per law, based on th....
Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld based on evidence, while the charge under Section 307 IPC was invalidated due to lack of intent, leading to a reduced sentence based on the time elapsed since ....
The existence of common intention among co-accused can be inferred from the circumstances without requiring premeditation; mere participation in a crime does not establish joint liability.
Inconsistencies in the evidence and failure to properly appreciate the material on record can lead to a manifest error of law, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Common intention for liability under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from circumstances and joint participation, not solely from direct evidence.
Modification of conviction requires evidence consistency; appellate courts must ensure convictions align with the facts presented without assuming the trial court's findings are absolute.
The court emphasized the standard for framing charges, allowing for a prima facie case based on the evidence without requiring a full trial.
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
