Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 131 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2016 – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2014 (arising out of Bagaha P.S. Case No.197 of 2013), by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Judge”), hence these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 17.12.2015, the learned Trial Judge has convicted all the appellants of the aforesaid appeals under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /149 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, they have been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months separately. The appellants of the aforesaid two cases have also been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of o
The court reclassified the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, emphasizing knowledge of likely death suffices under IPC Section 304 (Part-II).
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
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....
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When repeated blows are inflicted on parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain damage a....
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident.
The court emphasized that all members of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for murder, reaffirming the interpretation of common intention under Section 149 IPC.
Sentence – Principle of Proportionality should guide sentencing process – Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as prevent guilty party from repeating off....
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
