Back
DEBANGSU BASAK
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated July 08, 2022 and the order of sentence dated July 11, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Sessions Case No.03 of 2021, Sessions Trial No.17 of 2021.
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of conviction, the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the ingredients of section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not established at the trial. He draws the attention of the Court to the injuries suffered by the victim. He refers to section 308 of the IPC, 1860. He submits that, intention to inflict hurt for culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not established at the trial. In support of his contention, he draws the attention of the Court to the depositions of various prosecution witnesses and the injury report marked as exhibits at the trial.
4. He therefore submits that, t
Mitigating circumstances and the nature of injuries can be considered in modifying the sentence under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury and the intention or knowledge of the accused are essential in determining the appropriate offence under the IPC.
Participation in an assault leading to death can sustain a conviction under IPC Sections 304(Part II) and 447, even if the accused did not inflict the fatal blow.
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim's testimony, the medical evidence, and the seizure of the weapon, and that t....
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
