Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, SUMAN SHYAM
Hussain Ali S/o Abdul Khaleque – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by ten appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 25/2014. By the impugned judgment, all the appellants were convicted under Sections 147 , 148, 341, and 302 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as follows:
| Under Section 147 read with Section 149: | Simple imprisonment for six months. |
| Under Section 148 read with Section 149: | Simple imprisonment for one year. |
| Under Section 341 read with Section 149: | Simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Under Section 302 read with Section 149: | Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 500/- each, with a default sentence of an additional two months' simple imprisonment. |
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows: -
(i) That, on 10.01.2009, one Matiur R
The court determined that the lack of premeditation during an altercation when the appellants assaulted the deceased supports a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.
The court upheld murder convictions, emphasizing that minor witness discrepancies do not invalidate strong corroborating evidence; intent and premeditation were crucial in determining the charges.
Modifying conviction from murder to manslaughter due to lack of intent and premeditation, establishing a precedent for considering trivial disputes in assessing culpability.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the offences under Section 302 and Section 304 (Part-1) of the Penal Code, based on the circumstances and intent of the ....
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
The court determined that while the appellants participated in an unlawful assembly leading to death, their intent was not murder, qualifying the offense under culpable homicide not amounting to murd....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimony of interested witnesses, corroboration of eyewitness accounts by medical evidence, and evaluation of the accus....
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
