Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, P RAVIN S. PATIL , JJ.
Krishna S/o Sahadeo Vaidya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Officer In Charge Police Station, Aroli, Nagpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.) :
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.12/2014 dated 17.01.2017, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause.
2. Facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as follows – Sanjay Kharabe (P.W.1) son of the deceased lodged first information report alleging that on 12.09.2013, when he was at Bhandara, his cousin informed him on telephone that accused has committed murder of his father on account of distribution of water from canal. He therefore, returned to the village at 12 p.m. thereafter Vinod Waghmare told him that at about 11 a.m. when the deceased was turning water of canal towards his field by spade, accused Krishna Sahadeo Vaidya, who was carrying an axe with him, asked the deceased as to why he is turning water towards his field and not letting water flow towards his field and quarreled with him. Vinod tried to pacify the matter, but, accused no.2 Gaurishankar Krishna Vaidya also came there and when the
The court determined that the appellant's actions were provoked, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302, emphasizing the absence of premeditation.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
The court established that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Excepti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which outlines situations where culpable homicide does not amount to murder, based on the abs....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury, the presence of a motive prior to the incident, and the absence of provocation are crucial factors in determining th....
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden figh....
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under 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
