Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Md. Sarej Uddin @ Charej Uddin, S/o. Late Abdur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Rep. by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Robin Phukan, J.
Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. H. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (informant).
2. In this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the appellant, namely, Md. Sarej Uddin @ Charej Uddin has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala in Sessions Case No. 18/2020, arising out of Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 513/2020.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala (‘the trial Court’, for short) has convicted the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are adumbrated herein below :
Intent to commit murder under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from the nature of the act and the weapon used, regardless of the severity of injuries.
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
The court clarified that conviction under IPC Section 307 can be established not just through harm caused but also through the intent of the accused, underlined by consistent eyewitness accounts.
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
The court clarified that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused's intention to kill, which was not established in this case.
The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, including the intention of the accused and the nature of the act, are crucial in determining guilt.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC, establishing intent to cause grievous harm based on corroborated eyewitness and medical 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
