Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
Shankarsingh – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis and observations on evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. court's reasoning in determining liability (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. final orders and conclusion of the court (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.
All the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 22.10.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Indore, in S.T. No.458/1995, by which the appellants/accused persons Kailash and Prakash have been convicted u/s 307 of IPC and were sentenced to 7 years of R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Appellant Shankar Singh has been convicted u/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to 5 years of R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are that there was some monetary dispute between injured Ajay (PW-1) and accused persons Prakash and due to the same, on 08.06.1995, at around 11:30 PM, when the accused persons Kailash, Prakash and Shankar Singh came to the house of the injured, they took him out for a walk. Wh
The conviction for attempt to murder was altered to causing hurt due to insufficient evidence proving grievous injuries or intent to kill.
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible and corroborative evidence, including the testimony of injured witnesses and medical officers, to prove the complicity of ....
The court upheld the conviction of Anokhilal for culpable homicide based on substantial evidence, while acquitting other accused due to lack of proof of participation.
The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded special status and should be considered reliable unless substantial contradictions arise.
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....
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
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
