Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Birsoo Oraon, son of Bandhan Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Originally this appeal was preferred by 7 appellants, out of them, appellant No.1, Birsoo Oraon, son of Buda Oraon, appellant No.3, Somra Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon and Bandhan Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon have died and their appeal have been abated vide order dated 16.07.2025. The names of surviving appellants, namely, Birsoo Oraon, son of Bandhan Oraon, Aghnoo Oraon, son of late Konda Oraon, Mukund Oraon, son of Gigo Oraon and Lila Oraon, son of Gigo Oraon have been renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.
3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2003 and 05.02.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Civil Court, Gumla in S.T. No.357 of 1993 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of life for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for
The judgment establishes that a concerted attack resulting in death, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, regardles....
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.
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 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 lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
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
