Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
Mata Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the appellant nos. 1 and 2 namely Mata Prasad and Bhurey @ Dinesh Kumar have died and the appeal insofar as it relates to them has been abated vide order dated 11.7.2023 and 16.8.2023 respectively. Thus, the appeal survives on behalf of these appellants namely Pappu, Puttan and Daddan (appellant nos. 3, 4 and 5) only.
(A) Prelude
3. By means of this criminal appeal, the appellants, out of whom, only appellant nos. 3, 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as appellants) survive have challenged the judgment and order dated 26.5.2001 by which learned Sessions Judge, Bahraich in sessions trial no. 25 of 1999 arising out of case crime no. 318 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. police station Ikauna, district Shrawasti has convicted them under Sections 302/149 I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a stipulation of fine of Rs.5000/- each and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in default of payment of fine. In addition, appellants namely P
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
Modifying conviction from murder to manslaughter due to lack of intent and premeditation, establishing a precedent for considering trivial disputes in assessing culpability.
The reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of absconding as incriminating evidence, and the application of legal provisions under Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
Conviction under Section 302, IPC was altered to Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the heat of passion during a family quarrel.
The appellants were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the assault occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, with shared common intention.
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
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
