//
archives

Vijay Singh

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Sec.302 – vs- 326 I.P.C. – Absence of charge under sec.34 – five injuries – one say by Farsa on neck and another say by Ballam near the eye victim died – Doctor said due 5 injuries and due to loss of blood victim died – in the absence of a charge under sec.34 – who cause the death of victim not proved – the accused is liable to be convicted under sec. 326 for causing injury but not for death under sec.302 I.P.C. – Apex court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months. = VIJAY SINGH & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT = 2014 (March.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41334

Sec.302 – vs- 326 I.P.C. – Absence of charge under sec.34 – five injuries – one say by Farsa on neck and another say by Ballam near the eye victim died – Doctor said due 5 injuries and due to loss of blood victim died – in the absence of a charge under sec.34 – … Continue reading

the High Court allowed the Government Appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, and finding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code and gave him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. = tried to conceal the relationship between him and the deceased.= “Bhabhi” is a common form of address for the wife of someone who is known from before.; Coming now to Ex.Ka-10, it needs to be noted that that was an application for leave of absence given where he was working. It is a common failing to try to justify the unsanctioned absence from work by making out excuses and by taking some liberty with actual facts. Therefore, in his application for condoning the absence for four days, if he said that his cousin had met with a tragic accident, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was actually his cousin and in court he was trying to conceal the relationship. ; The Investigating Officer (PW.11) stated that he arrested the appellant at 8.00 p.m. on July 28, 1988. In course of interrogation he volunteered to produce the scissors used for killing the deceased from his shop. He took the Investigating Officer to his shop, opened it with the keys kept in his pocket and recovered the blood stained scissors from under the shop counter and produced it before the Investigating Officer. 35. PW.6 stated that on July 28, 1988, while he was going to the house of the deceased, he met the police people in Indira colony (the place where the occurrence took place). The appellant was also with them. The police people brought the appellant to his shop and got it opened and on the asking of the Daroga, the appellant picked up a pair of scissors from the counter of his shop and handed it to the police. A recovery memo was prepared and the signatures of the witness and one Bhim Singh were taken on the recovery On a careful consideration of the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the State, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly rejected the view taken by the trial court as wholly untenable and has rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3 in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 37. In the light of the discussion above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2008 Rajendra Singh … Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal … Respondent J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 30, 2008 passed by the Uttarakhand … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,305,041 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,893 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
Advertisements