Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR
Mantu Tiwary @ Manoj Tiwary son of Vidya Nand Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence the same have been clubbed and heard together and disposed of with a common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae (In Cr. Appeal No.1211/ 2004), Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the appellant (In Cr. Appeal No.1313/ 2004) and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri & Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.Ps.
3. Both the appeals have directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 08.07.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – IV, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.267 of 2003, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.13 of 2003, whereby the appellant namely, Mantu Tiwary has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341 / 304 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 304 IPC and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 whereas the appellant namely, Ashok Tiwari has been convicted for the offence under , 323 & 304/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for thre
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries are pivotal in determining culpability under IPC Section 304.
The court ruled that a lack of intent to kill leads to the conversion of conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC, allowing for compounding.
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.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; convictions based on insufficient evidence and incorrect sentencing cannot be sustained.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC, establishing that the accused had knowledge that their actions could likely result in death, based on the nature of injuries inflicted.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304-I, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill during the altercation.
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
Point of Law : Section 34 does not create a substantive offence. The vicarious or constructive liability under Section 34 IPC can arise only when two conditions stand fulfilled, i.e., the mental elem....
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
