citedby: 47359758

Madhu Lal & Ors vs State on 28 August, 2017

While considering the verdict of Honble Apex Court in case of Poona Ram (supra), in which 33 injuries were found upon body of deceased including fractures upon vital parts of the body, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any intent or premeditation, the offence will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Prasad & Anr vs State on 23 October, 2017

The appellants are not challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them for offence u/s 341 and 392 IPC, therefore, in view of judgment in the case of Poona Ram (supra), the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with 120B (1) of IPC deserves to be altered to the offence under Section 304 Part-I and 120B (1) of IPC.

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raju vs State on 23 October, 2017

The appellants are not challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them for offence u/s 341 and 392 IPC, therefore, in view of judgment in the case of Poona Ram (supra), the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with 120B (1) of IPC deserves to be altered to the offence under Section 304 Part-I and 120B (1) of IPC.

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Magni Ram vs State on 15 February, 2018

In Poona Ram's case (supra), where the fatal injuries were caused by the number of accused persons on the head and ribs and some of the injuries proved fatal, the court observed:

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Lodha - Full Document

CRL.A(J)/32/2020 on 4 November, 2025

The decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Poona Ram and others, [2016] 12 SCC 501, has dealt on the aspect of conversion of the conviction from one under Section 302, IPC to Section 304 Part-I or Section 302 Part-II, IPC.

Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Choudhury - Full Document

Pappu Ram vs State on 23 November, 2017

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Poona Ram reported in AIR 2017 SC (Cri.) 144, while considering the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 21.09.2005, did not accede to the prayer of State to convict the accused respondents for offence u/s 302 IPC, who were convicted for offence u/s 304 Part-I of IPC, but while considering the injuries and the fact that evidence of motive was absent, altered the conviction from offence u/s 304 Part-II to offence u/s 304 Part-I of IPC only. The following adjudication was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case, which reads thus:

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G K Vyas - Full Document

Naina Ram vs State on 28 November, 2017

In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Poona Ram reported in AIR 2017 SC (Cri.) 144, while considering the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 21.09.2005, did not accede to the prayer of State to convict the accused respondents for offence u/s 302 IPC, who were convicted for offence u/s 304 Part-I of IPC, but while considering the injuries and the fact that evidence of motive was absent, altered the (10 of 12) [CRLA-74/2016] conviction from offence u/s 304 Part-II to offence u/s 304 Part-I of IPC only. The following adjudication was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case, which reads thus:

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results