Back
MANISH CHOUDHURY, ROBIN PHUKAN
Buburam Deka – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. This criminal appeal from Jail is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case no. 129 of 2011. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2016, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the charge of murder under Section 300, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For finding him guilty for the charge of murder, the accused-appellant has been sentenced under Section 302, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another two months. It has been ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant is to be set-off against the period of sentence.
2. The investigation commenced pursuant to institution of a First Information Report [FIR] by one Ajit Saloi [P.W.1] as the informant before the Officer In- Charge, Tihu Police Station at around 09-20 a.m. on 18.02.2011. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge registered the same as Tihu Police Station Case no. 14/2011 for the offence under Section 302, IPC.
3. In the FIR [Ext.-1-1], the informant [P.W.1] had in
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the need for intent and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the intention to cause bodily injury and the likelihood of causing death in th....
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
If intention of accused was limited to infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and did not extend to intention of causing death, offence would be murder.
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
