Part-II, IPC but the learned trial court went wrong in convicting the appellant Naina Ram of offence under Section 24 , Cattle Trespass ... went wrong in convicting appellants Moola Ram. and Naina Ram for offence under Section 323 IPC. He further went wrong in convicting Smt. Roopi under
said witnesses the trial Court has come to a wrong
conclusion and has wrongly convicted the
accused. The Police have already visited the place ... accepted the said version
but has come to a wrong conclusion and has
wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, he prayed
to allow the appeal
said witnesses the trial Court has come to a wrong
conclusion and has wrongly convicted the
accused. The Police have already visited the place ... accepted the said version
but has come to a wrong conclusion and has
wrongly convicted the accused. Hence, he prayed
to allow the appeal
Prasad nor Nanhey Prasad (deceased persons) and learned court below has wrongly convicted him under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C., and he can only ... considering the evidence of the prosecution, therefore, the trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants on the basis of same evidence. As it is well
place of occurrence and the learned trial
Court has wrongly convicted them by holding that they also inflicted
injury to the deceased and were member
Section 149 IPC
could not be taken and the appellants were wrongly convicted under the said
provision. In nutshell, his submission was fourfold
under Sections 148 , 324 / 149 ,
323 / 149 , then how can they be convicted under Section 307 IPC with
the aid of Section ... 2000 have been
wrongly convicted under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 149
IPC, and therefore, their conviction cannot be sustained. Accordingly
Criminal
Singh @ Bobby have been attributed specific injuries and they
have been wrongly convicted and sentenced in this case.
Learned State counsel has argued that injury
Counsel for the appellants is that Sessions Judge had wrongly convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. There ... appellant Natthu is convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.
35. Now the question arises whether the appellant Natthu can be convicted under Section
appellants that appellant No. 2 (A. 2) has been wrongly convicted under Section 324 as the medical evidence does not support the eye witnesses
