Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR
Hasimuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. At the outset it needs to refer herein that the co- accused/appellant namely Tajibul Ansari and Maijul Ansari had died during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, therefore vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed by this Court instant criminal appeal has been abated against the aforesaid accused/appellant.
Prayer
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19th May, 1998 and Order of sentence dated 20th May, 1998 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.83 of 1989 arising out of Kanke P.S. Case No.144 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. No. 3568 of 1988, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Prosecution Case:
3. Prosecution story, as alleged in the first information, recorded on 15.11.1998 at about 19.30. hrs, inter alia, is that while the informant namely Ramjan Ansari alongwith his brother, Shafique Ahmad and Karijan came out of the Masjid after prayer of Namaj. At that time Majibul Ansari (appellant herein) was also standing there. Karijan asked Majibul Ansari to pay t
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
The court established that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Excepti....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the appellant's act was committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cr....
The court ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The act of the appellant was deemed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of premeditation and the nature of the quarrel, qualifying for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
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
