Back
ROHIT ARYA, SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Parmal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/5/2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Guna to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (Madhya Pradesh) in Sessions Case No.183/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (3 counts) of Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and under Section 25 (1) (A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:-
Conviction | Sentence | |||
Section | Act | Imprisonment | Fine | Imprisonment in lieu of fine |
302 | IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5000/- | RI for 2 years |
307 (3 counts) | IPC | RI for 10 years (3 counts) | Rs.2000/-(3 counts) | RI for 1 year (3 counts) |
25(1)(A) | Arms Act | RI for 3 years | Rs.1000/- | RI for 6 months |
27 | Arms Act | RI for 3 years | Rs.1000/- | RI for 6 months |
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 22/1/2012 at about 20:20 hours, complainant- Gopal Krishna Sharma made an oral complaint to the effect that at about 19:30 hours, when he alongwith his nephew Anil Sharma and Shailendra Sharma was coming on his foot from Old Sa
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of intent behind firearm injuries and the credibility of witness statements in determining the appellant's guilt for murder and a....
The consistency and reliability of witness testimony are crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The absence of medical evidence and postmortem report creates reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court modified the conviction of Subhash from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for evidence of common intention in joint criminal acts.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 I.P.C. for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
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
