Back
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Raju @ Govind s/o Kishan Koli – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the criminal appeal and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding conviction and sentencing. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and applicable law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. reduction of sentence based on previous incarceration. (Para 21) |
| 5. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-3-2023 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam in S.T. No. 2400095/2014 whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced for 2 years, 3 years and 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 5000/- and usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in nut shell are that on 26-2-2014 complainant, a driver, filed a report that he was returning back after dropping his child in school and when he reached Godra bridge, then accused persons namely Raju Kholi armed with sword, Vikas Harijan
The court determined that the conviction under Section 307 was unwarranted, affirming instead a conviction under Section 325 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to analyze the evidence and modify the conviction and sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The absence of recovered weapons undermined grievous assault charges; a compromise between parties allowed reclassification of conviction to a lesser offence under the IPC.
To convict under Section 34 IPC, evidence of common intention and premeditation is crucial; liability cannot be ascribed without clear proof linking all accused to the crime.
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
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
