VINEET KUMAR CHAUHAN versus STATE OF U.P.
Absence of Ballistic expert evidence is not fatal when direct oral and medical evidence is unimpeachable and consistent with prosecution version. Given absence of mens rea and premeditation, and occurrence following a sudden quarrel in heat of passion, offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Parties
- Appellant: Vineet Kumar Chauhan; Respondent: State of U.P.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal partly allowed
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder, Evidence, Ballistic Expert Testimony
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vineet Kumar Chauhan
Appellant
State of U.P.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether absence of Ballistic expert evidence is fatal to prosecution
- 2 Whether the offence committed is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Ratio Decidendi
Absence of Ballistic expert evidence is not fatal when direct oral and medical evidence is unimpeachable and consistent with prosecution version. Given absence of mens rea and premeditation, and occurrence following a sudden quarrel in heat of passion, offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC.
Court Disposition
Appeal partly allowed
Orders
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside
- Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment