Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Kishun Mahto, son of Ghano Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants Ms. Chandana Kumari as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava.
2. Since these appeals arises out of common judgment and order of conviction and sentence, hence are being heard and disposed of by common judgment.
3. It appears from the record that these appeals so far the appellants Jagdish Mahto, Khago Mahto, Chaman Mahto and Babu Mahto @ Yadav in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 471 of 2006 and Basudeo Mahto in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 506 of 2006 are concerned, have been abated vide order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court.
4. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27th March, 2007 and sentence dated 29th March, 2006 for the offence under Sections 307 , 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 146 of 1998 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and six months simple imprisonment for the offence
Conviction under Section 307 of the IPC requires clear intent; mere mutual combat without intent negates attempted murder charges.
The court ruled that lack of intent to kill, evidenced by the nature of injuries, invalidated the conviction under Section 307, while maintaining convictions under Sections 323 and 324 with reduced s....
The court granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act to first-time offenders in a land dispute case, emphasizing the absence of serious injuries and long-standing peace pos....
The court modified the conviction from attempted murder to causing hurt, finding insufficient evidence of intent to kill under Section 307.
Conviction for attempted murder under the IPC was inappropriate given the lack of intent, and the appellants were entitled to probation benefits due to the case's circumstances.
The court found that the evidence did not establish the intent required for serious charges under IPC Sections 307 and 450, modifying convictions to lesser offences based on the nature of injuries su....
Conviction requires concrete evidence; mere general allegations are insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict under Sections 304 and 323 of IPC.
Violation of procedural rules in SC & ST Act investigations vitiates trial outcomes; the conviction under lesser charges can be maintained despite initial assault intensity.
Insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration in testimony led to the reversal of conviction for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.
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
