Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Jamadar Yadav, Son of Sohan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Heard Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. In compliance of the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court regarding whereabouts of the appellants it is brought on record that appellant Niranjan yadav has died on 10.08.2020 and appellant Basu Yadav died on 14.12.2023. Since appellants no.1 and 3 have been died during the pendency of this appeal and no substitution application is on record, hence, the appeals related to appellant Niranjan Yadav and Basu Yadav stands abated. Rest of the appellants Jamadar yadav and Subesh Yadav, are re-numbered as appellant nos.1 and 2 respectively.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 152 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty and has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under both sections with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix
4. The prosecut
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....
The conviction under Section 307 IPC was overturned due to lack of intention to cause death, while convictions under Sections 323, 324, and 341 IPC were upheld.
Point of law : Conviction under section 307 set aside - Simple injuries - No injury was dangerous to life.
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....
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.
Insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration in testimony led to the reversal of conviction for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Conviction under Section 307 of the IPC requires clear intent; mere mutual combat without intent negates attempted murder charges.
The prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC due to the nature of injuries being simple, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and acknowledgment of a valid compromise.
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
