Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Khoshi @ Khosi Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellant-Khoshi @ Khosi Mahto has been convicted and sentence under Section 304(II) of the IPC, appellant-Jhari Mahto under Section 323 of the IPC and appellant-Bishun @ Bishu Yadav under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Jhari Mahto being 81 years of age, has been given the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, whereas other two appellants have been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment.
2. As per the fardbeyan of Ramdeo Yadav recorded on 21.07.2009 in Sadar Hospital, Giridih at 9 O’ Clock, on the said date in the morning at 5 O’ Clock his father Jhari Mahto along with his son Bishu Yadav had gone for transplanting paddy in his field which was objected to by his uncle Giro Mahto. Khoshi Yadav with Farsa, Dulari Devi with Lathi started abusing the informant. When this was objected to, Khoshi Yadav indiscriminately assaulted Giro Mahto by Farsa all over his body. On Hulla, when Tuplal Mahto ca
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC, establishing that the accused had knowledge that their actions could likely result in death, based on the nature of injuries inflicted.
The court emphasized the necessity of careful scrutiny of witness testimonies and the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal cases, leading to acquittals and affirmations of convictions based on e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgments to evaluate the nature of the assault, the intent of the accused, and the....
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The incident constituted sudden provocation without premeditation, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC and allowing for a sentence modification based on mitigating factors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence under section 304 part ....
The judgment established the importance of clear evidence linking the accused's actions to the alleged offence and highlighted the legal principles related to sudden fights and heat of passion in det....
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
