Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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

Similar News