Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“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