TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court acquits Jamuna Chaudhary of serious charge, upholds convictions with reduced sentences</h1> <h3>Jamuna Chaudhari & Ors. Versus State Of Bihar</h3> The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, acquitting Jamuna Chaudhary of the charge under Section 304 IPC while maintaining his conviction under ... - Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the prosecution's version of the incident.2. Credibility of the defense's version of the incident.3. Evaluation of evidence and witness testimonies.4. Determination of individual culpability and appropriate sentencing.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the prosecution's version of the incident:The prosecution alleged that on 15-7-1965, a group of 80-85 armed individuals attacked Dukhharan Koeri and his family in plot No. 39. The First Information Report (FIR) mentioned injuries to seven individuals. However, the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent, especially regarding the injuries to Laldhari, which were not mentioned by 13 out of 16 eye-witnesses. The trial court found the incident occurred in plot No. 39 but noted discrepancies in the prosecution's account, particularly the absence of details about Laldhari's severe head injury.2. Credibility of the defense's version of the incident:The defense claimed that Ramanandan and others were attacked by Dukhharan's party while ploughing plot No. 30. The trial court rejected this version, citing evidence of trampling in plot No. 19 and irregular ploughing in plot No. 30. However, the defense presented a sale deed and witness statements supporting their claim. The investigating officer noted that the defense's version was given immediately after the incident, but he did not thoroughly investigate the defense's claims, including the injuries to Ramanandan.3. Evaluation of evidence and witness testimonies:The trial court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's witness testimonies, particularly regarding the identification of the attackers. Only Dukhharan identified the accused individually. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide a complete set of relevant facts, and the investigating officer did not adequately investigate the defense's claims. The court concluded that the prosecution's attempt to prove a single incident was not beyond reasonable doubt and suggested that multiple incidents may have occurred.4. Determination of individual culpability and appropriate sentencing:The trial court acquitted 18 out of 31 accused due to lack of evidence of overt acts. Jamuna Chaudhary was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The remaining 12 appellants were convicted under various sections, including Sections 326/149, 325, 324, and 323 IPC, and received sentences ranging from one to six years. The High Court reduced these sentences by half but maintained the convictions. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the evidence did not conclusively prove Jamuna Chaudhary inflicted the fatal injury on Laldhari and acquitted him of the charge under Section 304 IPC, giving him the benefit of doubt. The court maintained the convictions of the other accused but reduced their sentences to the periods already undergone.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal partly, acquitting Jamuna Chaudhary of the charge under Section 304 IPC while maintaining his conviction under Section 147 IPC. The convictions of the other accused were upheld, but their sentences were reduced to the periods already served. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in connection with other cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
