Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.A. Sanap, J.
Babikala Sharad - Appellant
Versus
Siddharth Sukhdeo - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2009
Decided On : 20-06-2023
CULPABLE HOMICIDE - Murder and Culpable Homicide - Indian Penal Code, Sec. 302, Sec. 304 Part I, Sec. 304 Part II - The court discussed the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sections 299 and 304 of the IPC. It highlighted that under Sec. 304, the nature of the act and the intention of the accused are crucial in determining the appropriate charge. The court interpreted Exception 4 to Sec. 300, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a sudden fight without premeditation. The court concluded that the accused acted in the heat of passion during a quarrel, leading to a conviction under Sec. 304 Part II, rather than Sec. 302.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a local Corporator, was involved in a dispute with the deceased regarding incomplete drainage work in their locality. After a verbal altercation, the accused struck the deceased with a bamboo stick, resulting in serious head injuries. The deceased succumbed to these injuries days later, leading to the accused's conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part II of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of eyewitnesses credible, establishing that the accused inflicted a fatal blow in a sudden quarrel. The court determined that the act was not premeditated and fell under the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as per Sec. 304 Part II of the IPC.
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Sec. 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part II of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the accused's intention and the circumstances surrounding the act. It concluded that the accused acted in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, thus qualifying for a lesser charge under Sec. 304 Part II rather than Sec. 302.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the revision application was also dismissed. The substantive sentence was modified to reflect the time already served, with an additional fine imposed as compensation to the informant.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appeal and revision arise out of the judgment and order dtd. 11/6/2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.75, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of main charge under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C.
2. The facts are as follows:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused and the informant are residents of same locality. The accused at the relevant time was a Corporator of Municipal Council. The work of digging of drainage for laying the pipeline in Buddha Nagar, Kamptee area had started in the locality under Jiwan Pradhikaran Scheme of the Government. The accused, being a Corporator of the said ward, was instrumental in undertaking the said work. However, after digging the drainage, the work of laying pipeline was not completed expeditiously. It was therefore, causing inconvenience to deceased Sharad, his family members and others inhabitants of the locality. It is stated that the deceased repeatedly requested the accused to complete the said work.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 18/2/2004 the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle. The accused met him on the way in front of house of Sidharth Chaure. The deceased again requested the accused to complete the work. There was exchange of words between them on this count. The accused, therefore, inflicted a blow with stick on the head of deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries. He fell down and became unconscious. After hearing commotion the informant and other people from locality rushed to the spot. Some of the people actually witnesses the incident. They carried the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Roy. The informant thereafter went to Police Station and lodged the report.
5. The deceased was shifted from hospital of Dr. Roy to Super Speciality Department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 22/2/2004 at about 4.15 p.m. The investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court conducted the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as above.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the appeal. The informant, who is wife of the deceased, being aggrieved by acquittal of the accused under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C., filed the revision.
7. I have heard Shri A.K. Bhangde, learned Advocate for the accused and Shri Amit Chutke, learned APP for State. Learned Advocate for the informant despite granting number of opportunities, failed to appear before the Court. With the able assistance of learned Advocate for the accused and learned APP for State, I have gone through the record and proceedings.
8. Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that informant/Smt. Babikala (PW-1) is not an eye-witness to the incident. It is submitted that therefore, her evidence is hardly of any use to the prosecution. Learned Advocate submitted that remaining two witnesses, Smt. Ratnabai (PW-5) and Smt. Shalini (PW-7), are interested witnesses and ther
The judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
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 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 distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation i....
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 judgment established the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, and the factors to be considered for awarding appropriate sentence under IPC 302 or IPC 304 Part-II.
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 judgment emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the application of legal provisions in establishing guilt and justifying the conviction and sentence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgments to evaluate the nature of the assault, the intent of the accused, and the....
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
