Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Suresh Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SONI SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Nawada in Sessions Trial No.173 of 1995/147 of 2004, (arising out of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No.32 of 1995) whereby and whereunder appellants no.1 and 2, namely Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary have been convicted under Sections 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.P.C.’), while appellant no.3, namely Sevalal Choudhary @ Subelal Choudhary along with Late Rameshwar Choudhary (against whom the appeal has abated), has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., however, all of them have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
3. The case of the prosecution, based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, Kapil Prasad Sardar recorded on 07.05.1995 at 4:00 p.m., is that on the same day at around 2:30 p.m., he was going along with his brother-in-law, namely Yogeshwar Dhanuk towards
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
Conviction for attempted murder requires clear intent, and evidence of extortion must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to modifications in charges.
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible and corroborative evidence, including the testimony of injured witnesses and medical officers, to prove the complicity of ....
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consistent witness statements and the requirement for the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused.
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
