LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label MURDER CASE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MURDER CASE. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 4, 2013

murder case -High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2005, reversing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No. 374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `the IPC’) and awarded a sentence of 2 years each. A1 and A2 had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1908’) and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and 15 days respectively. They had further been convicted under Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment of three years with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A3 to A6 had been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment of one month each. However, A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act 1908. A4 and A5 were further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3 years on each count with a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment for one month. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.= In view of the above, the findings recorded by the High Court are liable to be set aside being perverse. The appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 13.2.2007 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 41 of 2005 is set aside, and judgment and order of the trial court dated 22.12.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 374/2000 is restored.

›
published in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40724 REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IND...
Thursday, May 23, 2013

murder case = i) As per site plan (Ex.P-9) mustard crop, standing on the land in dispute was destroyed by the tractor. ii) As many as 14 member of the complainant party sustained injuries. Veerpal died as a result of injuries received by him. iii) Member of complainant party had gone to the land in question unarmed and asked the accused party not to disturb mustard crop whereas accused party had gone with lethal weapons. iv) There is chequered history of litigation between the complainant party and the accused party. v) Accused Sita Ram and Ranveer had guns whereas accused Ranveer, Yogendra and Balla had kattas (country made pistols) and they indiscriminately opened fire at the members of complainant party. vi) According to Prahlad Singh I.O. (PW.29) cross case bearing FIR No.254/99 under sections 447, 323, 341, 147 and 148 IPC was registered against the members of accused party. Ghambhir Singh (appellant) sustained simple injuries that were incorporated in injury report (Ex.D.15).” 12. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly rejected the contention of self-defence that had been raised, and acquitted some of the convicted accused, giving them the benefit of doubt. In light of such a fact-situation, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

›
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1946 of 2009 Yogendra @ Yogesh...
Wednesday, May 8, 2013

murder case =version of P.W.3, the so-called eye-witness, that when the High Court chose to disbelieve his version, insofar as it related to the other three accused on the same reasoning, it ought to have acquitted the appellant as well.= when the presence of P.W.3 at the place of happening of the occurrence was thus fully established with the support of P.W.4, as rightly concluded by the trial Court, as well as, the High Court, the only other question was whether the rest of the statement made by P.W.3 merited any acceptance. In that respect, we find that the High Court made a close scrutiny of the version of P.W.3 and has found that he was a totally independent witness and he had no axe to grind against the appellant. In fact, his statement that he could not identify the other accused, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, was a very fair statement. When he also belonged to the same village, there was no reason for him to implicate the appellant alone. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court that such a fair statement made by the witness, namely, P.W.3 cannot be used to totally erase his version, was perfectly justified. Further, because he did not make any attempt to go to rescue of the deceased cannot be put against the witness, inasmuch as when four persons were assaulting the deceased with dangerous weapons that too in the night hour in the present day set up, one cannot expect an unarmed person to get himself entangled and suffer unnecessary harm to himself. Moreover, the occurrence took place late in the light at around 9 pm and, therefore, prudence might have dawned upon him not to fall a cheap prey at the hands of such criminals who were already assaulting a person with a dagger and other weapons. Equally his conduct in having come back to the place of occurrence in the early morning at around 7.30 am along with P.W.4 only shows his earnestness in disclosing what he witnessed on the previous night to the police. The recoveries made at the instance of the appellants also fully supported the case of the prosecution.- We say so, since we are convinced that the version of P.W.3 was wholly reliable and there was no reason to doubt his version in order to apply the principles set out in the above referred decisions. 20. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

›
Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009 Palwinder Singh ….App...