Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Bhuneshwar Rabidas, son of Late Budhani Ravidas – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the murder case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. witness testimonies support prosecution. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 3. defense claims of absence of intent. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's evaluation of evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. modification of conviction based on lack of intent. (Para 14) |
| 6. outcome of appeal with modified sentences. (Para 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 respectively passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2002, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 73 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Navneet Sahaya, Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned APP for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter-Sunita Kumari was married on 28.04.2002 in presence of several villagers and relatives. It is alleged that in the night of 01.05.2002, p
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 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 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 judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and established motive, dismissing intoxication as a defense.
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.
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
