Back
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Anjalappa, S/O Hanamappa Damargidda – Appellant
Versus
Sate Of Karnataka Through Mudhol P. S. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
The appellants, arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.322/2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of convenience), have questioned the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2013 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing them “to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months”.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred with reference to their rank before the trial Court.
3. The records of this appeal do reveal that the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on hearing the arguments of both the sides vide judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed an order acquitting accused No.2 on the ground that as on the date of incident he was a juvenile as defined under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and found no material to convict accused No.2 i.e. appellant No.2 and ordered to release him from custody forthwit
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
(1) Murder – Adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor when doctor who conducted post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a r....
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
