Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH INDORE BENCH
S.C.SHARMA
Anokhilal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.C. SHARMA, J.
The appellants have filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 304 (II)/149, 323/149 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I., 1 year R.I. 10 years R.I. 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story in short is that one Sangeeta Bai (daughter of the appellant – Rajaram) got sick and the appellants suspected that Kanhaiyalal and his wife Ayodhyabai practised witchcraft, because of it, Sangeeta Bai became unwell and on 20.04.2003 at about 07:00 pm, when Kanhaiyalal and his wife Ayodhyabai, daughter – Prembai, Sewantibai, grandson – Fagu and Mahesh were discussing the aforesaid issue with each other in their house, appellants – Anokhilal, Rajaram, Babu, Dayaram, Jagdish, Kanhaiya, Laxmibai, Mukesh and Vinod armed with deadly weapons, entered into the house
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 conviction for attempt to murder was altered to causing hurt due to insufficient evidence proving grievous injuries or intent to kill.
Modifying conviction from murder to manslaughter due to lack of intent and premeditation, establishing a precedent for considering trivial disputes in assessing culpability.
For a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, which involves establishing the causal connection to the accused, a requirement not met in th....
The court determined that the lack of premeditation during an altercation when the appellants assaulted the deceased supports a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.
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.
Court ruled that injuries did not indicate intent to kill, modifying convictions to lesser charges under IPC.
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.
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
