MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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