Back
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR
Lalan Chaudhary, son of Babu Lal Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.)
Heard Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 29.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track court no. III, Gopalganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1997, arising out of Mirganj P.S. Case No. 230 of 1994 registered under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 324/ 325/326/307/149/427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and while awarding the sentence, learned Trial Court directed all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Seven years for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Trial Court further sentenced all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The accused appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. T
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
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
