9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, and 379/149 IPC, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Evaluation of evidence by the trial court and High Court. Nature of injuries and appropriate conviction under IPC. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by 12 appellants against their conviction under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. The trial court had acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted them under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, and 379/149 IPC. The prosecution's case revolved around a land dispute leading to the fatal beating of the deceased, witnessed by several individuals from the village. The trial court had cited discrepancies in the witnesses' testimonies and lack of reliability. However, the High Court overturned the acquittal, emphasizing the credibility of the eyewitnesses and convicting the appellants based on the prosecution's evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. The court found the testimonies of five eyewitnesses consistent and credible, dismissing the trial court's dismissal of their credibility as chance witnesses. The presence of the injured witness, who filed the FIR promptly, further corroborated the events leading to the deceased's death. The court upheld the High Court's decision to convict the appellants based on the reliable eyewitness testimonies, establishing their presence and participation in the crime beyond doubt. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased. The post-mortem report revealed 28 injuries, with no internal damage or injuries to vital organs that could conclusively cause death. The court concluded that the assault was intended to harm rather than cause death, leading to a modification in the conviction. The appellants were acquitted under Section 302/149 IPC and instead convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, with a reduced sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The other convictions and sentences by the High Court were upheld, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the conviction under the appropriate IPC section based on the nature of injuries inflicted during the incident.
|
