Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Krishan Chandra Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Sri Akhilesh Pandey and Anirudh Mishra, learned Advocates for the three appellants in the two appeals and Sri Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP for the State. The informant has been represented by Sri Gajendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate.
3. Appellant/Krishna Chandra Pandey @ Bombai Pandey has been convicted under Sections 302, 307/34 and 380 of the IPC vide judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court- II, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1995 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1995, arising out of Dumrao P.S. Case No. 71 of 1994. By the same judgment appellant/Dhananjay Pandey has been convicted under Sections 302 and 307/34 of the IPC. Likewise appellant/Ramesh Pandey has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC. Both appellants/Dhananjay Pandey and Ramesh Pandey have been but acquitted of the charge under Section 380 of the IPC. By order dated 17.05.2018 appellant/Krishna Chandra Pandey @ Bombai Pandey [Cr. App (DB) No. 847 of 2018] has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay
The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The court reinforced the principle that evidence must establish intent and direct involvement for conviction under murder statutes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden fights and the absence of premeditation, leading to a conviction under Section....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence, contradictions in witness testimony, and the applicability of specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, considerin....
Conviction under homicide laws requires both ocular and medical evidence to substantiate claims; familial witness testimony, if credible, is admissible.
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
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
