Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ram Lal Dehri, son of Late Lachhu Dehri – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background and charges (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant and the state (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidentiary weight (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. modification of conviction and sentencing (Para 16) |
| 5. final order and directions (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Ragini Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole appellant for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka in S.T. Case No.173 of 2012 arising out of Gopikandar P.S. Case No.31 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1450 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) for the offence under section 302 of IPC and R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-(One thousand) for the
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 court modified the conviction from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II) due to lack of intent.
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.
Murder and attempt to murder – In a case of free fight between parties where both parties have sustained injuries, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to cause death is a crucial factor in determining whether an act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable h....
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....
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.
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
