Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Sunil Marandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2004 in connection with Pakuria P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 329 of 2004, Pakur, Jharkhand, whereby and where under the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as the RI) for a period of 5(five) years and also to pay fine to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for a period of one year.
2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of fardbeyan of Rajen Murmu S/o Josey Murmu of village Bichpahari P.S. Pakuria, Distt. Pakur recorded by B. Tiwari ASI of Pakuria P.S. on 21.08.2004 at about 19.30 p.m. at Primary Health Center Pakuria. Informant Rajen Murmu (PW-9) disclosed in the
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.
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 prosecution must establish intent or knowledge relating to murder for conviction under attempted murder; inconsistencies in evidence can undermine a case.
In order to determine whether an offence under section 307 IPC is made out, crucial fact to be considered is intention and knowledge of appellant with which injuries were inflicted and not gravity of....
The conviction under Section 307 IPC was overturned due to lack of intention to cause death, while convictions under Sections 323, 324, and 341 IPC were upheld.
The judgment establishes that the intention of the accused and the circumstances of the act are pivotal in determining the offense under Section 307 I.P.C., and the nature of the injuries alone is no....
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
