Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Moosantepurakkal Manaf, S/O.Aboobacker – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
The accused in S.C. No.145/2009 on the files of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 25.09.2014. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Carefully gone through the verdict under challenge and the records of the Sessions Court.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 05.00 p.m. on 17.05.2005, in front of the Govt. Hospital, Tirur, the accused herein and 4 other co-accused in the charge formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object of causing death of PW1 and bodily hurt on PW1 to PW3 and indulged in the act of rioting armed with deadly weapons and that the accused had wrongfully restrained PW1 to 3 from proceeding in any d
The court clarified the threshold for attempted murder under IPC Section 307, determining the accused's actions did not meet the necessary intent, and therefore modified the conviction to lesser char....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the application of Sections 141, 143, 144, 146, and 149 ....
The identification of the accused must be specific and certain for a conviction; insufficient evidence leads to the overturning of convictions for unlawful assembly.
Identity of persons comprising assembly is a matter relating to determination of guilt of individual accused.
The court established that intent and premeditation are crucial to determine murder charges, and lack of such elements may warrant a conviction for lesser culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC, establishing that the appellants had the intention to commit murder based on the evidence of eye witnesses and the nature of the assault.
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....
Point of law: It is proved that, the victim died of the injuries of knife blows. Those blows were inflicted by original accused No.1. He is convicted for having committed offence under Section 302 of....
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC for a conviction, distinguishing it from common object under Section 149 IPC.
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
