Decided on February 24,2016

Mohd. Haleem Appellant
STATE OF M.P. Respondents


- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
(2.) The finding of fact recorded in the impugned judgment against the accused -appellant on the charge of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code'), imposed by the trial court has been maintained by the High Court.
(3.) The correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal urging various legal contentions. Our attention was drawn to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment and order to show that the benefit of doubt has been extended to the other accused viz., the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 2871/98 and Criminal Appeal No. 2896/1998 before the High Court, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the charge proved has been set aside and they were instead convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same benefit may be extended in favour of the appellant herein. He further submits that the concurrent finding of fact recorded on the charge against the appellant is based on chance witnesses and therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Code is wholly unsustainable in law. At best the appellant can be convicted and sentenced under Section 326/34 of the Code.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.