Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Panchu Turi @ Panchu Ram, Son of Late Rauila Turi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Heard Mr. Shekhar Siddharth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2008 and 25.01.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2005, whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.03.2005 at about 01:00 PM, the informant was milking his buffalo at his cattle shed. Suddenly, the accused appellant viz. Panchu Turi armed with a sword arrived at the spot and inflicted a sword blow from behind, on his head, resulting in deep cut injury. The accused then continued his assault, delivering sword blows
The trial court must provide specific reasons when denying probation to first-time offenders who demonstrate good conduct, as mandated by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Court modified sentence under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing rehabilitation for older defendants over incarceration, especially given the non-dangerous nature of injuries caused.
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 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 emphasized the importance of rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders, allowing probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying probation without special reasons, emphasizing the appellants' clean record and the nature of the injuries.
The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation for first-time offenders, allowing probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC but granted probation due to the petitioner's status as a first-time offender, emphasizing the need for leniency in sentencing.
Section 324 I.P.C. is as voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
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
