Back
NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Keshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned amicus curiae for the appellants as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The appellants of both the appeals have preferred the appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 02.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1991/ Trial No. 539 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
|
| Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 102 of 2006 | |||
| Appellants | Convicted under sections | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | in default of fine | ||
| 1. Keshwar Singh 2. Suraj Singh 3. Ramashray Singh 3. Ramashray Singh | 147, 323, 325, 307 and 149 IPC
148 IPC | R.I. for one year (u/s 147 IPC) R.I. for six months (u/s 323 IPC) R.I. for two and half years (under Section 325 IPC) R.I. for seven years (u/s 307 IPC) R.I. for one year |
1000/- |
R.I. for three months |
|
| Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 132 of 2006 | |||
| Ram Bilash Singh | 147, 323, | |||
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 325, affirming the trial court's findings based on consistent witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove intent to cause death in assault cases; insufficient evidence led to acquittal.
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.
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
