Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, J
Shyam Sunder Choudhary @ Shyam Choudhry Son Of Late Satyanarayan Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002 arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Rajmahal whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 307/34 IPC ; R.I. for 2 years u/s 325/34 IPC ; R.I. for 6 months u/s 342/34 IPC and R.I. for 6 months u/s 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo R.I. 3 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.8)- Seema Choudhary, whose statement was recorded by the A.S.I. Kapil Deo Prasad of Raj Mahal P.S. on 05.10.1998 at 9.30 hrs.at Referral Hospital, Rajmahal, which is as under:
On 03.10.1998 at about 5.00 P.M. four accused persons namely Dilip Kumar Chowdhary, Rajesh Kumar Chowdhary, Shyam Sunder Chowdhary and Laxm
The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
The court modified the conviction from attempted murder to a lesser charge due to insufficient evidence of intent and lack of specific identification of the appellants as shooters.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
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
