Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MALASRI NANDI
Satyendra Narayan Das, S/o. Late Gagan Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By Learned P. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M. Zothankhuma, J.)
Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Sessions Case No.132/2006, by which the appellants Satyen Das @ Satyendra Narayan Das and Balen Das @ Bulen Das have been convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year. The other two appellants, namely, Manoj Das and Khargeswar Das have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, they are to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. The appellants Manoj Das and Khargeswar Das were also convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year.
3. It may be mentioned here that the appellant Satyen Das is the father of the other appellants, i.e. Manoj Das, Khargesw
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of common intention in a criminal assault case, considering the nature of injuries, weapons used, and the formation of common ....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing common intention and individual participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the need for reliable evidence to prove the a....
The judgment establishes the principle that the intention to cause death can be inferred from various circumstances, leading to different convictions under the Indian Penal Code.
A conviction for murder is upheld when the prosecution establishes intentional lethal force and the defense fails to demonstrate any mitigating statutory exceptions, such as grave and sudden provocat....
The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate 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
