9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Nature of offence committed by the appellants and quantum of sentence. Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellants causing the death of their uncle and attempting to murder another individual over a land dispute. The trial court convicted them under different sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with varying sentences. The High Court altered the convictions and sentences, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. 2. The main argument presented by the appellants was self-defence of their property. The right of private defence of property under Sections 103 and 104 IPC was discussed in detail. It was concluded that the actions of the deceased and his sons amounted to criminal trespass, justifying only causing harm other than death by the accused-appellants. 3. The medical evidence presented by Dr. S.C. Agarwal detailed the severe injuries inflicted on the deceased, leading to his death. The post-mortem report was crucial in determining the nature of the injuries and the weapons used by the accused-appellants in the assault. 4. The judgment analyzed the application of Section 34 IPC, which requires the establishment of common intention and participation of the accused in the commission of the offence. In this case, A-1 and A-3 were found guilty under Part-1 of Section 304/34 IPC due to their murderous assault with deadly weapons. 5. The Supreme Court modified the sentences imposed by the High Court, reducing the term of imprisonment for A-1 and A-3 from seven years to five years. Additionally, A-2 was acquitted as his actions were deemed to be in exercise of the right of private defence of property under Section 104 IPC. 6. The judgment concluded by partially allowing the appeal, adjusting the sentences based on the analysis of the facts and legal provisions discussed in the case.
|
