Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, VIMAL K. VYAS
Harishsinh @ Harshadsinh @ Lalo Chandrasinh @ Chandansinh Gohil – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.S. Supehia, J.—The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2013, wherein and whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed, in default, simple imprisonment of one year. He is also sentenced to undergo for six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- is also imposed, in default, simple imprisonment of one year.
Brief Facts
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exh.2 is that on 10.01.2013 at 13.00 hours, when the first informant, PW-1 was returning from his farm, he saw PW-11, Somabhai Andarsinh Parmar, who was going with the tractor filled with concrete and at that time, the accused was walking in the middle of the road and the said witness asked him to walk on the side of the road, due to which he got irritated and started abusing. At that time, the first informant was going from his field towards hi
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 302 and Section 300 of the IPC, and the interpretation of Exception 4 under Section 300. The court'....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
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, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the 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
