Back
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Sachidanand Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Soni Shrivastava, J.—The present appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2016 and 10.08.2016 respectively, passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.276 of 2002, arising out of Karja P.S. Case No.16 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, they have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellants have been further convicted under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for 2 years. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 147 of the I.P.C. as also Sections 323 and 324 of the I.P.C., however, no separate sentence has been awarded thereunder. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The short facts of the case arising out of the First Infor
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that sudden altercations without premeditated intent can lower the charge under IPC.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the application of legal provisions in establishing guilt and justifying the conviction and sentence.
The court modified murder convictions under Section 302/149 to Section 304 Part-II/149 based on medical evidence attributing death to septicaemia from ante mortem injuries, highlighting the significa....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
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
