Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Gift Of Temple Inam Land Void Ab Initio, Incapable Of Government Sanction Or Valid Registration: Supreme Court Section 483 BNSS | Pursuing Parallel Remedies & Suppressing Rejection Of Interim Relief Amounts To Abuse Of Process; Uberrima Fides Essential For Bail: Supreme Court Suit For Possession Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Registered Sale Deed Casts Serious Cloud On Title; Declaration Or Cancellation Mandatory: Supreme Court Representation Of People Act | Private Complaint By Voter Maintainable For False Nomination Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC Bar Inapplicable: Supreme Court Gravity Of Allegations Cannot Eclipse Other Bail Considerations Or Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Detention: Supreme Court Contract Act | Agreement To Sell Not Enforceable Contract Prior To Conveyance Deed; State Can Re-Auction For Price Maximisation: Supreme Court Failure To Consider Incident Video Footage & Section 161 CrPC Witness Statements Vitiates Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Pleadings To Correct Typographical Errors Should Be Allowed To Ensure True Facts Are Before Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Major Penalty Of Removal From Service Cannot Be Imposed Without Departmental Inquiry: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Under General Insurance Rules Section 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash FIR When Allegations Of Forgery And Fraud Raise Disputed Questions Of Fact: Delhi High Court Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed In Entirety Merely Because Section 498A IPC Is Not Sustainable Due To Invalid Marriage: Calcutta High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 14(6) DRC Act | 5-Year Bar On Eviction Inapplicable When Co-Owners Acquire Premises Inter Se Family Through Gift Deed: Delhi High Court Territorial Jurisdiction In Missing Person Cases | Court Can Direct CBI Probe If Journey Commenced Within Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Future Prospects Must Be Added In Permanent Disability Cases Even If Functional Disability Is Assessed Liberally: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registration Act | Registering Authority Lacks Power To Refuse Registration On Grounds Of Unapproved Layout Or Lack Of Title: Telangana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction U/S Section 304 Part II IPC - Dismissing Grounds of Inconsistencies and Non-Consideration of Defense Witness

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


On 18 May 2023, In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of an appellant in a criminal appeal challenging the application of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant had been sentenced to four years of imprisonment and a fine after being found guilty of the offense. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal, addressed various aspects of the case, including discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, witness statements, corroborative testimonies, medical evidence, and the defense's version of events.

The case revolved around an incident that occurred on September 14, 1992, involving a dispute over land between the appellant and the deceased. According to the prosecution's case, a scuffle ensued, during which the appellant, along with other individuals, allegedly attacked the deceased with a danda (stick), resulting in his death. The Trial Court initially acquitted the accused, but the judgment was reversed on appeal by the State.

The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that there were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and that the appellant should not have been convicted based on the statements of the eyewitnesses. The defense also contended that the appellant's version of events, supported by a defense witness, was not adequately considered. Furthermore, the defense emphasized the lengthy duration of the case and urged the court to consider the impact on the families involved.

After considering the arguments presented, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the statements of the eyewitnesses and medical testimony. The court noted minor variations in the witness statements but attributed them to inadvertent mistakes and the passage of time. It held that the corroborative testimonies provided strong support for the prosecution's case and that the medical evidence confirmed that the deceased had sustained a fatal head injury caused by a blunt weapon.

The defense's version of events, presented through a defense witness, was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. The witness's testimony contradicted various aspects of the defense's case, thereby weakening its impact. The court concluded that the High Court had appropriately reversed the Trial Court's acquittal based on the compelling evidence presented by the prosecution.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of the evidence and rejected the appellant's arguments challenging the conviction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.

D.D-18May.2023

Gian Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh       

Latest Legal News