Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Bamiya Pingua, Son of Late Chambru Pingua – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 16.09.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 241 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- [ten thousand] and in the event of default of payment of fine convict was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Prosecution Case:
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.
3. As per fardbeyan (Ext.1/3) of the informant P.W.8 Janki Kui, which was recorded by P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police, Binod Oraon, Officer-in-charge, Manjhari P.S. on 23.6.2012 at 6.00 hours at near house of Badhai Pingua at Jangiburu, the case of
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court established that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Excepti....
Altercation due to a love triangle led to unintentional death; court ruled for culpable homicide, not murder, emphasizing the lack of premeditation.
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the presence of intention and premeditation, with the absence of these elements allowing for a conviction under Section 304 instead of S....
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
