TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court alters convictions from Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part I with Section 34 IPC</h1> <h3>Vijayee Singh and others Versus State of U.P.</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the appellants' convictions under Section 302/149 IPC, convicting them instead under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 ... Delete Issues Involved:1. Conviction of the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 IPC.2. Discrepancies in the evidence and non-explanation of injuries on the accused.3. Right of private defence and the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act.4. Determination of whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence.Summary:1. Conviction of the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 IPC:On 29.5.1981, a grave rioting took place in Tirro village, resulting in the deaths of Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh and injuries to Vijay Narain Singh, Uma Shankar Singh, and Kailash Singh. Fourteen accused were tried under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court convicted all 14 accused based on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, awarding life imprisonment u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court was divided in its opinion, leading to a third Judge, Seth, J., acquitting ten accused and confirming the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6.2. Discrepancies in the evidence and non-explanation of injuries on the accused:The prosecution failed to explain the injuries on accused Nos. 13 and 14. The evidence showed that accused No. 13 had gun-shot injuries and accused No. 14 had a lacerated wound, both received during the occurrence. The trial court and High Court Judges had differing views on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the explanation of these injuries.3. Right of private defence and the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act:The Supreme Court discussed the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, stating that the accused must prove the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any exception. The Court referred to several precedents, emphasizing that the burden on the accused is to establish a preponderance of probability and that the prosecution must still prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the non-explanation of injuries on the accused could create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.4. Determination of whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence:The Court held that the accused had a right of private defence but exceeded it by intentionally shooting the deceased. The evidence suggested that the deceased were not armed with deadly weapons, and the accused's response was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing the accused to 10 years imprisonment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC and instead convicted them under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to 10 years imprisonment. The other sentences/convictions were confirmed, and the appeals were allowed to this extent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
