Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh
Munshikha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
1. Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2023, passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in S.T. No.67/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304(part-II)/34, 323/34, 452 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 10 years, 3 months and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 10.01.2016, the children of deceased Madanlal were playing in the place just opposite to their house, then appellant Munshikha's son came there and started flying kite. When deceased Madanlal forbade him from flying kite and asked him to return back to his house, then Munshikha's son started hurling abuses and pelted stone on deceased's stomach thereafter, Madanlal and his children went inside their house. After some time, appellant Munshikha and his two sons came to deceased's house, started hurling abuses. It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted deceased and his father with sticks, kicks and fists, so also threatened t
The court ruled that injuries caused were not sufficient to lead to death, thus altering the conviction from culpable homicide to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC.
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
Point of law : Admittedly according to the prosecution's own case Ran Singh and Rattan Singh were carrying lathies which could be described as hard and blunt object. Such injuries on the person of th....
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
The absence of intent to kill or knowledge that actions could likely cause death, alongside significant pre-existing health issues of the deceased, led to the alteration of conviction from murder to ....
The conviction was modified from Section 304(Part-II) to Section 325 of IPC, establishing that while the actions resulted in serious injury, they did not demonstrate the intent necessary for murder.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden quarrel.
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
