Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2010 passed by this Court in the instant matter, the complainant and injured are impleaded as respondents and are represented through their learned. The remaining four accused were acquitted of all the charges. Under both the Sections of 324 and 326, it is not the actual nature of the injury caused namely whether simple hurt or grievous hurt, but the manner in which it is caused, which is relevant. Some of the above witnesses are injured witnesses and others are only eye-witnesses. The learned Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to point out anything on record to disbelieve their presence. Therefore, the newly recruited judicial officers should aware of the same.
He recovered certain material objects from the place under Mahazar in the presence of the very same witnesses including the blood stained earth. It says that except in cases stated in section 334, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or by any instrument which can be used as a weapon of offence and when so used is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both. The accused denied the same. There is a common ingredient which is required for the conviction under this section and that element is intention along with the knowledge and the implication of the act done. Gopal Lal Nagar, the internal injuries suffered by the deceased as a result of the assault on the head was ultimately responsible for the death of Mukhtyar Singh.
According to his opinion, the injuries 1, 3 and 4 would have been caused by a crow bar and the injuries 2, 5 and 6 by a spade handle. Now coming to the contention regarding the evidence of P. Subdural and subaractroid haemorrhages present over both cerebral henspheres. . In view of the statement, made by respondent Nos. However this argument was refuted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which gave a very good reasoning to solve this seemingly good question of law. The 1st accused attacked Beeman with spade handle and the 2nd accused attacked him with crow bar.
The Allahabad High Court also ruled similar liability in a case of nose bite. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae had taken us through the evidence on record, particularly, the depositions of the eyewitnesses examined in the case, i. The learned counsel submits that the Sessions Court, Thalassery, had dismissed the prayer for an order, under S. On returning to the police station, he registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No. The position as on 2006 still holds water since there is nothing contrary available. The Notification vividly says that Section 42 f iii of Cr.
According to them, they did not involve in any such crime as alleged in the charge sheet. The 2nd accused was having a crow bar in his hand and the accused 1 and 3 had spade handles. That is how, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. All the three accused chased P. The deciding opinion in such case is always the decision of the apex court which ruled that it is not at all mandatory for the accused to be convicted under this section, that he does not have to cause life threatening injury on the victim, his intention, knowledge and the preparation that he took will be the factors that will be looked into for his conviction.
Classification of offences under Section 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348 of Indian Penal Code 1860 Offences affecting the human body and punishment for the crime are defined under Section 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Compoundable offences are those which can be settled outside court. The sufferers are the landlords. Thereafter at the conclusion of the trial while two of the accused i. He collected the Accident Register copies of all the injured and went to the Government Hospital at Salem at 9. The 1st accused had suspicion that P. Amendment of the First Schedule.
Madhusoodanan submits that there is a doubt in this regard at least in some Courts. He has given a citation wherein the controversy has been set at rest. However, because of the non implementation of S. What Section 42 sub-section f iii of Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005 No. Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and the sentences imposed, all the six accused had filed a common appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
In respect of the 5th charge with regard to the attack made on P. As the thngs stand, there appears no notification is made for enforcing the amendment. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. This is contradictory in nature. Imprisonment for 7 years and fine. C Amendment Act, 2005 is excluded and therefore not yet enforced. So far as the 8th charge is concerned, it relates to the 4th accused, who has been acquitted and therefore, this charge does not require any consideration by this Court.
Akshay Beri also had attached. She told him that the 1st accused had gone for hunting. If the doctor has got any opinion regarding the deceased by which the deceased was suffering, it is for the Doctor to depose before this Court. We, therefore, do not find any basis whatsoever to disagree with the view taken by the High Court insofar as the two convicted accused are concerned. The difference being that courts say that to prove the intention of the accused, the nature of the injury, the nature of the weapon used, preparation taken are taken into account however surprisingly the courts arrive at different conclusions regarding these facts. Offence under Section 326 is non-bailable and non-compoundable and is triable by any Magistrate.
I live in adra, dist purulia, West bengal, India. Palnitkar, had given reply as early as on 14. This is very interesting to see that on the case of nature of injury all the courts are giving different opinions. When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice must weigh with the court. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, even if the prosecution story as a whole is to be accepted the four accused in question cannot be made liable for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149.