Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Lakhiram Hembram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 3rd February, 1994 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1991, whereby, the appellants no. 1 Lakhiram Hembram @ Lukhiram Hembram and the appellant no. 3 Santan Hembram have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/323/325 of the Penal Code, 1860 and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and no any separate sentence was awarded to them under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. The appellant no. 2 Abhilash Hembram and the appellant no. 4 Chhotenath Hembram are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each under Section 325 of the Penal Code, 1860 further they are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The appellant no. 5 Anand Hembram was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the Penal Code, 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the accused's shared common intention with others to commit the offence, as required by section 34 of the India....
The conviction was modified from Section 304(Part-II) to Section 325 of IPC, establishing that while the actions resulted in serious injury, they did not demonstrate the intent necessary for murder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the accused to establish any exception upon which they rely, and the reliance on credible evidence to establish guilt beyond....
[The court established that in cases of sudden quarrel without premeditation, the appropriate charge may be modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the importan....
The court upheld the conviction of one appellant for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, while acquitting the other due to insufficient evidence linking him to the cri....
Legal insanity must be proven for an acquittal; inconsistencies between eyewitness and medical evidence undermine the prosecution's case.
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
