Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Kapoor Manjhi S/o Late Inder Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that out of 17 appellants herein, appellant namely Ramu Mandal, Balbhadar Mandal, Basudeo Mandal, Sargun Mandal, Mahabir Manjhi and appellant Thakur Mandal died during pendency of the instant appeal. No leave has been sought by any of the legal heirs/close relatives of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr.P.C. pari materia to section 435 of the BNSS, accordingly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2025 had abated the appeal of the aforesaid appellants.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.09.1997 and Order of sentence dated 19.09.1997 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.154 of 1990 / 42 of 1990 wherein the Appellant no. 1 Kapoor Manjhi has been convicted under section 324 and section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine to undergo S.I. for three months under section 324 of IPC and sentence was directed to run concurrently. The remaining appellants, i.e., Appellant Nos. 2 to 11 have been convicted under Section 147
The court upheld the convictions under sections 147, 148, and 324 IPC, affirming that eyewitness and medical testimonies established the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and ass....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of vicarious liability by virtue of Section 149 IPC requires evidence of the formation of an unlawful assembly, and the court m....
In a case with competing allegations, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when inconsistencies arise regarding injuries sustained by both parties.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of injuries sustained and the absence of evidence reflecting an intention to commit murder influenced the court's decision in al....
For a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, which involves establishing the causal connection to the accused, a requirement not met in th....
The court emphasized that mere presence without overt acts does not satisfy the requirement of common intention necessary for a conviction under Section 34 of the 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
