Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, NANDESH S.DESHPANDE
Abid Khan alias Baba s/o Majeeb Khan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
GUDGMENT :
Urmila Joshi-Phalke J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana (learned Judge of the trial court), in Sessions Trial No.79/2003.
2. By the said judgment impugned in the appeal, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are as under:
Santosh Sudhakar Tayade (the deceased) was auto-rickshaw driver. On 26.4.2003, at about 5:30 to 6:00 pm, there was altercation of words between him and the accused on account of act of the accused while shaking tobacco. The dust entered into the eyes of the deceased. During altercation of the words, the deceased was assaulted by the accused due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. As per the allegations, the accused assaulted the deceased by fists and kick blows. On the basis the said report, the police registered the crime against the accused and other two co-accused.
4. After registration of
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.
Culpable homicide may be reduced to lesser charges under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC when death occurs due to injuries inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation.
Point of Law : Deceased and Appellant were both inebriated and the quarrel between them was sudden and heated, it cannot be reasonably said that the Appellant has acted in an unusual manner.
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....
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.
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine the appropriate offense based on the nature of injuries and intention.
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....
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
