Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Vidya Sagar Mallah S/O Late Bikerma Mallah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Kumar, J.
Both the appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of the same Sessions Trial bearing S.T. No. 48 of 1988, arising out of Assaon P.S. Case No. 16 of 1986, corresponding to G.R. No. 1109 of 1986. Both the appeals have been preferred against the same impugned judgment.
2. The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 941 of 2013 has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2013 and 09.09.2013, respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Siwan, whereas the Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 6 of 2015 has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal by the same impugned judgment dated 07.09.2013 passed by learned Trial Court.
3. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2013, the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 941 of 2013 have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas the respondents of Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 6 of 2015 have been acquitted of all charges. By the impugned order of sentence dated 09.09.2013, the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 941 of 2013 have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment fo
The court established that the accused acted in self-defense against an unlawful assembly, leading to their acquittal despite initial convictions.
To establish a case under Section 34 of I.P.C. prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action a....
The right of private defense is justified when imminent danger is present, and the response must be proportionate to the threat.
The right of private defense under IPC Sections 100 and 102 was upheld, leading to the acquittal of the accused as they acted in self-defense during the incident.
The court established that the use of deadly weapons in a coordinated attack indicates a common intention to kill, and the defense of private defense was not applicable as the accused did not demonst....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of joint liability under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, supported by precedents, to attribute criminal responsibility to t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
