Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Manohar Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction dated 20.04.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 263 of 1995, arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 68 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 590 of 1993, whereby and where under the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and has been directed to be released under the provisions of section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with section 360 of Cr.P.C. on entering in to a bond of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousands) with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of two years.
2. The prosecution case arose on the beyan of informant Bishwnath Mandal (PW-4) on 17.07.1993 at 12:45 p.m. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.07.1993 at about 9.30 AM, the informant Bishwnath Mandal (PW-4) of village Kordiha, P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka along with his family members came to the P.O. land with their Bullocks etc. for ploughing the land and was planting the seedlings there meanwhile all the accused persons, (Manohar Mandal, Raju Mandal, Biru Mandal, fuldhar Rout, Saru Mandal, Karu Man
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of injuries sustained and the absence of evidence reflecting an intention to commit murder influenced the court's decision in al....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
The court modified the conviction from attempted murder to a lesser charge due to insufficient evidence of intent and lack of specific identification of the appellants as shooters.
The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.
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
