Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
William Dungdung S/o Joseph Dungdung – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009 by which Appellants Sukhdeo Bhokta, Jaipal Bhokta and Chote Bhokta have been convicted and sentenced under Section 325 of the IPC.
2. The convicts have preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 952 of 2013 against the judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2014 has been preferred by the victim against the acquittal of Fauli Bhoktain and further for conviction of the other appellants for lower offence under Section 325 of the IPC, whereas the appellants were charged for offence under Section 307/149 of the IPC.
4. Land dispute is the genesis of the offence. As per the FIR, on 11.11.2007 when the informant-Joseph Dungdung was getting his crops harvested, the above named accused persons came armed with Tangi and Lathi and conjointly assaulted the informant. When his son William Dungdung came for his rescue, he was also assaulted with sharp cutting weapon with intention to cause death. There were altogether 20-25 aggressors who retreated after critically injuring the informant and his son.
5. On the writt
The court clarified that family witnesses can be credible, and conviction under IPC was modified based on the evidence presented, emphasizing the need for clear intention in assault cases.
Conviction under IPC requires specific overt acts; lack of direct evidence led to acquittal of murder charges and modification to lesser offense.
In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.
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 prosecution's failure to explain injuries to the accused and the unexplained delay in FIR registration raised doubts that led to the allowance of the appeal.
The acquittal of accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the principle that enmity can lead to false implication.
Insufficiency of evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]
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
