THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE vs KALICHARAN . — Crl.A. No. 1411/2013

Case under Section II-E. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010045432011

Filing Date

08-Feb-2011

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 1411/2013

Diary Number

4543/2011

Order Date

31-May-2019

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2019 INSC 689

Disposal Type

Partly Allowed

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-E

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE

    Adv. HARSH PARASHAR[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KALICHARAN .

    Adv. MD. FARMAN[R-1] MD. FARMAN[R-2] MD. FARMAN[R-3] MD. FARMAN[R-5] MD. FARMAN[R-7]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-May-2019

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 31-May-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 31-May-2019

    Mention Memo

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

  5. 27-May-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 27-May-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 28-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 28-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 27-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 27-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 02-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 10-Dec-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 17-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 08-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 08-Feb-2011

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1411/2013

casestatus.in Summary

The Supreme Court partially allowed Madhya Pradesh's appeal, upholding the acquittals of most accused in a free-fight case but finding grave error in the High Court's reduction of Ramavtar's conviction from murder (Section 302/149) to causing death by negligence (Section 304 Part II). The Court altered Ramavtar's conviction to Section 304 Part I (rash act causing death) and increased his sentence to eight years rigorous imprisonment with ₹5,000 fine, finding that a fatal head injury inflicted by a blunt instrument on a vital body part warranted this conviction level. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case