Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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