Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Kamu Kisku – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.—The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 12.04.2018/18.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333 of 2012 arising out of Sarath P.S. Case No.66 of 2012 (hereinafter called the impugned judgment), whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 has been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant Nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku and Ramdhani Soren have been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment of 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based upon fardbayan of one Gobardhan Kisku recorded by A.S.I. namely Narendra Kumar of Sarath Police Station dated 10.05.2012 at about 11:00 hours at P.S.C. Sarath, stating inter alia that on 10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, while the informant was irrigating vegetables in his field
Murder and attempt to murder – In a case of free fight between parties where both parties have sustained injuries, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended.
The court ruled that the incident was a sudden fight, reducing the conviction of appellant No.1 from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part-II of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden fights and the absence of premeditation, leading to a conviction under Section....
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 court ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
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.
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
