Back
M. M. SATHAYE, SUNIL B. SHUKRE
Pinkesh Dhiraj Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for Respondent No.1 State.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even though charge-sheet is filed under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the Petitioners and although the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has committed the case to the Sessions Court for its trial for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the fact is that by no stretch of imagination can it be stated that any offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as explained by the Exception 2 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in this case. He further submits that in this case, there is no homicide much less culpable, committed by the Petitioners and, for committing the offence of culpable homicide, some overt act on the part of the accused and that too with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and as provided under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is required. He subm
The presence of an overt act coupled with criminal intention or knowledge is necessary for culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) Discharge of accused – By its very nature, discharge is at a higher pedestal than acquittal – Acquittal is at end of trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or prosecution....
Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the absence of intent to kill warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302.
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the 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.
Culpable homicide requires proof of intention or knowledge; negligence alone suffices for charges under section 304-A of IPC.
The absence of intent to kill and the nature of injuries led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
The absence of intent to kill led to the reclassification of charges from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
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
