IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, NANDESH S.DESHPANDE
Mitaram S/o Tohidas Vaidya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia (learned Judge of the trial court) in Sessions Trial No.72/2016.
2. By the said judgment impugned in this appeal, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 2 months.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
(A) The accused is father of Anmol (the deceased). He was residing along with his wife Dayawantabai, the deceased, another son Shailesh, and daughter Sangita. On 24.8.2016, during the night, the deceased demanded Rs.500/- from the accused and the accused told him that he is not having that much amount. On the next day, i.e. 25.8.2016, again, the deceased demanded amount to his father. He has also demanded amount Rs.20/- from his mother for recharging the mobile phone. After obtaining the money for recharging the mobile phone, the deceased was sitting at “chhapri” of the house and the accused was also sitting there. The deceased asked Rs.500


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 a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
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 intentional acts resulting in death with premeditated aggression qualify as murder, not lesser culpable homicide, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence in establishing inte....
Grave and sudden provocation can reduce murder charges to culpable homicide under IPC, provided it meets specific parameters for loss of self-control.
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 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 court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction 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.
The court clarified that for Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC to apply, provocation must be both grave and sudden, leading to a temporary loss of self-control.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.