K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, R.P.SETHI
Keshavlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code punishes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, divided into Part I (intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death) and Part II (knowledge that the act is likely to cause death). The core ingredients, derived from the distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC) and murder (Section 300 IPC), require proof of the following general elements, with specific qualifiers for each part:
Key Distinction from Section 302 (Murder): If the act fits Section 300 without exceptions (e.g., premeditated, with knowledge of lethality without Exception 4 benefits), it is murder. Section 304 applies when an Exception (like Exception 4: sudden fight in heat of passion, no undue advantage) reduces it. (!) [1000067120004]
These must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, often via eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and circumstances showing lack of premeditation. (!) (!) [1000067120003][1000067120004]
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.-Holding that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court on the basis of the findings given being totally erroneous and as a result of misreading the evidence, the High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, set aside the same and convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The High Court found that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of five eye-witnesses and to ignore a number of independent circumstances which connected the accused with the commission of the crime.
2. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Y.P. Singh, learned Counsel (Amicus Curiae) submitted that as the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the accused, was a probable view, the High Court should not have interfered with by convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is contended that there being various omissions, improvements and contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, no reliance should have be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.