In a recent legal case, the court analyzed the use of a deadly weapon causing grievous injuries to vital body parts. The court’s decision to uphold the conviction was based on a thorough legal analysis of the weapon used, the location of the injuries, and witness testimonies. This case highlights the significance of legal precedents, the nature of injuries caused, and the evidentiary value of witness statements in determining guilt under the law.
Facts
- The appellants are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
- The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- The original accused have preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment.
- The appellants seek to challenge the decision of the High Court in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.393 of 2004.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Analysis
- The accused have been rightly convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for using a deadly weapon causing injury near the chest and stomach, vital parts of the body.
- The intention of the accused is inferred from the weapon used, the body part targeted for assault, and the nature of the injury inflicted.
- Concurrent findings by the lower courts support the guilt of the accused, not warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
- The single blow/injury inflicted was on vital body parts and caused grievous injuries by a sharp cutting weapon.
- Precedents establish that a single blow, depending on its nature and consequences, can lead to convictions under different sections of the IPC.
- Witness testimonies, particularly of the injured eye-witnesses, hold strong evidentiary value and support the prosecution’s case.
- The facts surrounding the use of a deadly weapon, the location and severity of the injuries, alongside witness testimonies, justify the accused’s conviction under Section 307 IPC.
- The decision of the Court in Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar shall not be applicable to the current case.
- Subsequent decisions and the nature of injuries caused by the weapon used differentiate this case from Jai Narain Mishra.
- Considering the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Case Title: SADAKAT KOTWAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2021 INSC 719)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001316-001316 / 2021
