Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, ANSHUMAN
Kamakhya Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara on 27th of November, 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were held guilty and convicted of the charges under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and also under Sections 149 /302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on the above two heads of charge.
2. Accused Binod Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT , 1959. It was directed by the Trial Court that substantive sentences of rigorous imprisonment shall run concurrently.
3. Sworn of unnecessary details, the facts, leading to the present appeal is as follows: -
4. One Baban Prasad, son of Jagannath Prasad, since deceased, made a statement before the Officer Incharge of Charphokhar
The court ruled that evidence from interested witnesses is credible if consistent and supported by circumstances, necessitating careful evaluation of roles in unlawful assemblies under IPC.
The prosecution must prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, and essential witnesses must be produced to unfold the narrative.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Point of law : Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its ....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
The appellate court can set aside a trial court's finding of acquittal if it finds that the finding is perverse and against the weight of evidence.
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
