Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Appellant’s Sentence Reduced to Five Years R.I. in Culpable Homicide Case: ‘Mitigating Circumstances Considered’ Says Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has reduced the sentence of the appellant, Ghanshyam, who was convicted under Sections 304-II and 323 of IPC. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice Prem Narayan Singh on August 29, 2023.

The appellant was initially sentenced to 10 years and 3 months R.I. with a fine. However, the High Court considered “mitigating circumstances such as the appellant’s long trial period and lack of premeditation” in reducing the sentence to five years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The Court clarified that the legal maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India, stating, “Testimony of witnesses cannot be disregarded solely because other co-accused persons are acquitted.”

The defense had argued that the sentence was excessive and that the witnesses were interested parties. The Court, however, held that “the maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar.”

The Court also rejected the argument that the appellant should be charged under Section 325 of IPC for a single blow. It held that the appellant’s act of using a lathi encircled by iron wire on a vital part of the body made him liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC.

The appellant, who is currently on bail, has been directed to surrender before the trial Court within 15 days to complete the remaining part of the sentence.

The judgment has cited several precedents, including the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1956 SC 460 and Jaswinder Singh (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Navjot Singh Sidhu and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 2441.

This ruling is expected to have implications on how mitigating circumstances are considered in sentencing for serious offenses.

Date of Decision: 29.08.2023

GHANSHYAM vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News