Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Kedar Ram, sons of Late Bihari Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellant's defense arguments against conviction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis and findings on evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. final order acquitting the appellants. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above-named appellants for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.05.2003 & 28.05.2003, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. It is here pertinent to mention that one co-convict Kishun Ram (main assailant) had preferred Cr. A. (DB) No. 774 of 2003 and due to death of the said appellant, his appeal has been abated.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.05.1995 at about 08:00 P.M., some scuffle took place between the appellants and one Ramayan Ram. It is alleged that a
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.
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
Conviction under homicide laws requires both ocular and medical evidence to substantiate claims; familial witness testimony, if credible, is admissible.
The court determined that a single act in an altercation did not constitute murder, leading to a conviction of culpable homicide instead, emphasizing the necessity of intent and multiple injuries for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
Point of law: Sometimes even falsehood is given an adroit appearance of truth, so that truth disappears and falsehood comes on the surface.
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
