SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, J
Indersen v. State of Maharashtra


Table of Content
1. appeal stems from a conviction under s.302 ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding lack of corroborative evidence and common intention. (Para 4 , 5 , 11)
3. court’s detailed evaluation of evidence and intent. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. final decision to reclassify charges to s.304 ipc. (Para 12 , 15)

1Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 18-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 796/1995 against the appellants, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

2. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned Police Prosecutor we have scrutinised and reappreciated the entire evidence on record.

3. The prosecution story stated briefly is that on 16-3-1995 which was a Holi day the incident occurred in Panchambhayya Chawl, Ghatipada, Mulund West, Mumbai where there was a quarrel between the victim and the accused over petty matter of sprinkling water on that day. The quarrel was repeated in the evening and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 immediately after the quarrel stabbed the deceased - Babasaheb Kharat as a result of which he d

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top