Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 345 (0.37 seconds)

Ranthu Oraon vs State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2019

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the place of occurrence has not been specifically established. Most of the prosecution witnesses including the de-facto complainant (PW1) did not specifically state 3 the place of occurrence. Weapon of offence was not seized from the appellant who was apprehended at the spot. The incident occurred in the dark and there was no light to identify who had shot the arrow at the deceased. Torch lights were not seized in course of investigation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, it was argued that the appellant had no intention to kill the victim and had indiscriminately shot arrows as he had been surrounded by a large group of persons and apprehended that he would be manhandled by them. Hence, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ought to be converted to one punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on Laxman vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 316.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next