Back
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused person under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-3-2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No. 98/1998, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 328 of Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months.
2. It is an admitted fact that the complainant Omprakash was known to the accused since the year 1983. The appellant used to live in Delhi where he worked in a cloth shop. Smt. Shakuntala is wife of the complainant Omprakash. On 6-3-1998, at around 09:13 PM, the appellant had gone to complainant’s house and asked Shakuntala (PW/2) that had complainant Omprakash returned or not? Shakuntala (PW/2) called her neighbours and made the appellant stay in her house at night. On the next day, Shakuntala (PW/2) sent the appellant to Police station along with Gram Pradhan. On 11-3-1998, Alok Kumar Sharma (PW/5) was posted as SHO Police Station G
Conviction under Section 328 of the IPC requires corroborative medical evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the need for concrete evidence and consistency in the c....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.
The court affirmed conviction under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC, citing insufficient evidence for rape charge under Section 376, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.
Acquittal under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC upheld for unproven accused identity, eyewitness contradictions, absent rash driving proof, non-examined key witnesses, and victims' alcohol influence ind....
The reliability of the victim's testimony and the principle that minor discrepancies should not overshadow trustworthy evidence.
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
