MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Premeditated Murder with an Axe: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Fatal Blow After Initial Quarrel

02 October 2024 8:12 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction and life sentence of Ashok Singh for murder in the case of Ashok Singh vs. State of Jharkhand. The court confirmed the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Palamau, which found the appellant guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the trial court's ruling that Singh intentionally murdered Shyamdeo Singh by striking him on the head with an axe.

The case originated from an altercation between Ashok Singh and Shyamdeo Singh on February 28, 2015, at around 8 PM. The dispute escalated when the appellant, after initially being separated from the deceased by villagers, returned with an axe and struck the deceased on the head. The victim, severely injured, was rushed to multiple hospitals but eventually succumbed to his injuries on March 3, 2015, in Varanasi. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged five days later, on March 5, 2015.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ashok Singh had intentionally committed murder. The defense argued that there was no direct evidence and raised concerns about the delay in filing the FIR, contradictions in witness statements, and non-recovery of the murder weapon (axe).

Multiple eyewitnesses, including the wife and son of the deceased, corroborated the sequence of events leading to the fatal attack.

The injuries sustained by the deceased, as confirmed by the postmortem report, matched the description of the attack.

The delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained, as the family prioritized medical attention for the victim.

Non-recovery of the murder weapon was not deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case since the eyewitness testimony clearly established the weapon used.

The court noted that the appellant's actions were deliberate and premeditated. Initially, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, but after being separated, the appellant retrieved an axe from his house and attacked the victim. The court highlighted:

“The appellant went to his house and brought an axe and thereafter assaulted the deceased which suggests that he had motive to commit the murder of the deceased.”

Furthermore, the court rejected the defense’s claim that the case was based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, as the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The court also dismissed the argument about the FIR's delay, considering the circumstances of the incident and the family's focus on trying to save the victim's life.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved Ashok Singh's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the delay in filing the FIR was justified. The conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

 

Date of Decision:October 1, 2024

Ashok Singh vs. State of Jharkhand

Latest Legal News