CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Appellants Entitled to Benefit of Doubt: Supreme Court Alters Conviction From 302 IPC To 304-Part II

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India altered the conviction of the appellants involved in an altercation that led to a death. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. GAVAI, Justice B.V. NAGARATHNA, and Justice PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, delivered the judgment on November 03, 2023.

The case revolved around an incident where the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly accused of assaulting the complainant party, resulting in the death of an individual named Madan. The appellants were initially convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the judgment, the court observed, ”Undisputedly, from the evidence of Chironji (PW-6) and Ramhet (PW-12), it is clear that the present appellants were members of the unlawful assembly.” However, the court also noted that there was no specific role attributed to the appellants in assaulting the deceased Madan.

The defense highlighted that the accused had sustained injuries during the altercation, which were not explained by the prosecution. The court acknowledged this point, stating, ”The injuries sustained by three accused persons are not at all explained. The trial court and the High Court have not considered this aspect of the matter.”

Considering the possibility that the accused did not intend to cause death, the Supreme Court altered the conviction, stating, ”We are therefore of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be sustainable.”

The court concluded by altering the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Part-II of Section 304 IPC and sentencing the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

This judgment underscores the importance of considering all aspects of a case, including the intention behind the actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Date of Decision: 03 November 2023

PARSHURAM VS STATE OF M.P.       

      

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/03-Nov-2023-Parshuram-Vs-State-MP.pdf"]

Latest Legal News