Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
ABHIMANYU GHOSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
Judgment :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This Revision has been filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur on 19.01.1994 in Sessions Case No.41 of 1991, further confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur vide his judgment dt.07.06.1995 passed in Crl. Appeal No.85 of 1994. Petitioner was convicted to undergo R.I for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I for 1(one) month for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for 1(one) month of the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R is that the injured, a student of Class-V along with 3(three) of his friends had gone to collect Bambo on the eve of the Ganesh Puja celebration to the house of one Kama Ghosh. While they were outing, the present Petitioner was coming from the other side in a cycle. It is contended that without any reason and basis, the accused-Petitioner stopped at the spot, where the students had gathered and all on sudden by snatching away the Kati from the hand of the injured, assaulted him on his neck and shoulder, for which
Conviction for a serious crime under Section 307 requires proof of intent to cause death or grievous harm; if only simple injuries are sustained, conviction can be altered to a lesser offense.
The conviction under Section 307 was altered to Section 324 due to the simplicity of injuries and insufficient medical evidence, with allowance for release under the Probation of Offenders Act.
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of evidence to determine the nature of the offences and the intention of the accused, as well as the consideration of the accused's ....
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the sole testimony of the injured witness, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the reasons for not granting the benefit....
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
Conviction upheld for grievous assault and trespassing; however, due to circumstances, sentence reduced from three years to one.
Conviction upheld - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - X-ray report - Oral evidence of victim matches with medical evidence and injury report has been proved.
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
