Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Madheshwar Manjhi, Son of Late Jagmohan Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
All the four appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Binod Kumar, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, the learned Advocates for the four appellants respectively. The State is represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutors.
3. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 341/149, 323/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 2019/ 45 of 2020. By order dated 22.03.2021, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 147 IPC; RI for two years under Section 148 IPC; RI for one year under Section 323/149 IPC; SI for one month under Section 341/149 IPC; RI for five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for three months under Section 307/149 IPC and RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for three months under Section 302/149 IPC.
4.
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 absence of premeditation and the nature of familial disputes lead to conviction under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder.
Evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved only because they are related to victims.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
The conviction was modified from Section 304(Part-II) to Section 325 of IPC, establishing that while the actions resulted in serious injury, they did not demonstrate the intent necessary for murder.
The court upheld the convictions under sections 147, 148, and 324 IPC, affirming that eyewitness and medical testimonies established the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and ass....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the offences under Section 302 and Section 304 (Part-1) of the Penal Code, based on the circumstances and intent of the ....
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
