Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, J
Vinod Kumar Rajak, Son Of Late Gopi Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Both the appeals have arisen in the wake of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against these two appellants namely, Vinod Kumar Rajak, appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1623 of 2006 and Santosh Kumar Razak appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 95 of 2007 by which both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 120-B of the IPC .
Challenge in the appeal:
2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2004 by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, East Singhbhum at Jameshedpur whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted under sections 307 along with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months and further directed to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 120-B of the IPC .
Prosecution Story:
3. The prosecution story is based on the Fardbayan of the informant, Kishore Kumar
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 central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of injuries sustained and the absence of evidence reflecting an intention to commit murder influenced the court's decision in al....
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.
Insufficiency of evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants were convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for causing hurt using firearms during an altercation, base....
The court ruled that mere infliction of simple injuries does not imply intent to kill, emphasizing that the determination of culpability under Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused's intention.
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
