Back
S. K. SAHOO, CHITTARANJAN DASH
Makaru Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
By the Bench:
The appellant Makaru Naik faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, Camp at Bonai in Sessions Trial Case No.83/56 of 2009 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter >I.P.C.?) on the accusation that on 13.06.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. at village Kuliposh under Lahunipara police station, he committed murder of one Bhanu Naik (hereinafter >the deceased?) by means of a ‘tangia.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 found the appellant guilty under the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter >F.I.R.?) (Ext.4) lodged by Sukanti Naik (P.W.3), the widow of the deceased on 14.06.2008 before the Inspector in-charge of Lahunipara, in short, is that she married to the deceased about a year prior to the date of occurrence and after constructing a house on a Government land in village Kuliposh, she was staying there with her deceased husband. They had also constructed a goat shed adjacent to their house, and using the same for
Unintentional homicide comes under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
The court determined that credible eyewitness testimonies corroborated by medical evidence established the murder of the deceased, affirming the conviction under section 302/34 of the IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
Circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no other reasonable explanation available for the crime, affirming conviction for murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
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....
Conviction under Section 302 of IPC cannot stand where the accused was not specifically charged, and evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
