Back
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Piyush Sharma @ Kaka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J.
This appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as, 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by appellant / convict against judgment and order dated 08/03/2016 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.115/2013, whereby the appellant Piyush Sharma @ Kaka has been convicted under Section 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as, 'IPC') and Section 25(1-B)(A) read with Section 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to under to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 05 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 07 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with usual default stipulation for respective offences.
2. The prosecution story as emerged during trial briefly stated is that complainant Neelesh Pathak (PW-1) on 16/02/2013 at about 09:50 hours came to the Police Station Kotwali, District Dewas and reported that today at about 08:00 to 08:30 pm he, his brother Mukesh @ Monu Pathak (now deceased) and his brother's wife (Bhabhi) were at their home. Appellant / accused Piyush Sharma @ Kaka, friend of his brother came in the drawing roo
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, including DNA and ballistic reports, established the appellant's guilt for murder, rejecting claims of provocation.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and the presence of provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
The court established that circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to guilt, and in this case, the evidence supported a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of....
The conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Arms Act was upheld based on corroborative evidence and the significance of prompt FIR lodging, affirming established motive and forensic linkage.
Point of Law; It is well settled by plethora of judicial pronouncements by this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless prove....
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
