P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

T. Devendiran v. State - (High Court of Madras) (24 Jun 2016)

Hitting with a gun not the same as shooting with one

Criminal

The Madras High Court deleted a charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act against an accused who attacked the complainant physically with a gun.

Instead of shooting the complainant, the accused had bashed him on the head with the butt of the gun. No shots were fired in the altercation. Section 25 of the Act is a provision making punishable a wide variety of gun-related activities, including: converting imitation firearms into operational weapons; or indulges in the sale and manufacture of ammunition.

The court noted that the the accused was licensed to own the gun and only caused a “simple injury”, not a gunshot wound. As such, the matter was outside the remit of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Tags : ARMS ACT   ASSAULT   SIMPLE INJURY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved