Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sahabuddin Ansari, son of late Abedin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ananda Sen, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28th June, 2016 and order of sentence dated 30th June, 2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No.297 of 2007, arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.89 of 2007 (G.R. No.330 of 2007), whereby all the appellants were convicted under Sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 452, 307 & 504 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Appellant Nos.1 and 2 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offences under Sections 307/149 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months. They are further sentence to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C., S.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., S.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C.
Appellant Nos.3 and 4 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of making payment of fine they are further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 mon
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC, establishing that the appellants had the intention to commit murder based on the evidence of eye witnesses and the nature of the assault.
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 court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC, establishing intent to cause grievous harm based on corroborated eyewitness and medical evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction of two appellants for attempt to murder, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt; others acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.
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
