Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, NANDESH S.DESHPANDE
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Wariskhan S/o Kalekhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
( PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J.)
1. The present Appeals are directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur Dist. Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 8/1996 dated 28.07.2004 convicting the accused No.1 Wariskhan of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and convicting the accused No.2 Majidkhan of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.100/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from Police papers and record and evidence are as under:
2(i). Criminal law is set in motion on the basis of the report lodged by Madhukar Kanetkar the uncle of the deceased at Paratwada Police Station alleging that he owns agricultural property and deceased Suhas, his nephew, was looking after the said property at Village Dhotarkheda. They have cultivated the Orange Plants in the field. Prior to two days of 30.10.1995
Culpable homicide distinguished from murder based on intention and knowledge; knowledge suffices for conviction under Section 304(II) of IPC, while failure to explain accused injuries does not negate....
Intention in culpable homicide is inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the location of injuries, and conduct indicating a purposeful act to achieve a harmful outcome.
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 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....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC, considering the absence of premeditation, sudden fight, and influence of intoxicatio....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
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
