Back
SUBHASH CHAND
Surendra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 4th February, 2011 and Order of Sentence dated 5th February, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2010, whereby, the appellant no. 1 Surendra Yadav and the appellant no. 2 Sri Niwash Yadav have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further the appellant nos.1 and 2 were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 447/34 of the I.P.C. The appellant nos.1 to 3 were also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish common intention based on the evidence of the assault, resulting in the convict....
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The appellants were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the assault occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, with shared common intention.
Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.
The prosecution must prove common intention for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The Court upheld convictions under IPC sections for attempted murder and assault, emphasizing the weight of eyewitness and medical testimony, and affirming the principle of common intention among mul....
The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, and common intention among co-accused can be inferred from their conduct during the commission of the crime.
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
