Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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