Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, RAJESH RAI K.
Bandenavaz, S/o. Ameensab Biller – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Mudgal Police Station, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned II Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Raichur in S.C.No.51/2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment throughout life and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to pay the fine, same to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
2. The brief facts which led to the trial of the appellant are as follows:
The complainant in this case Bibi Fatima married deceased Nabi Rasool about 12 years prior to the date of incident and having four children. Deceased Nabi Rasool was addicted to alcohol and about two months prior to the incident, he started to raise quarrel with the complainant (examined as PW1) every night in drunken mood. The accused/appellant being younger brother of the complainant, used to advice the deceased not to rise quarrel. Eight days prior to the incident, the deceased abused the complainant stating that the complainant and her mother are belonging to the family of prostitutes. Accused/appellant again advised the deceased and threatened him stating that he
The reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly in murder cases, affirms conviction even when the witness is a relative, unless significant contradictions are proven.
The burden of proof, quality of evidence, and the application of exception 4 to section 300 of IPC in determining the nature of the offence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
Part II of Section 304 of IPC comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to ....
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions, prompted by provocation and lack of intent to kill, warranted a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
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
