Back
SUBHENDU SAMANTA
In the matter of : Kaliram Hembram – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Medinipur in Sessions trial No. XXVIII of November 1983 convicting the present appellant to sentence rigorous imprisonment for 07 years is being found guilty u/s 304(II) of IPC.
2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that the deceased Raghunath was the father of the present appellant, the complainant (PW 1) is his step-mother and PW 4 is his stepsister. On 25th Jaistha 1384 BS, corresponding to 12.05.1982 at about 6/7 p.m. In the evening the accused attacked Raghunath with Lathi, Mugur and Pirah and stuck him with those objects causing serious injuries on his present as Raghunath refuses to transfer his property to the accused as demanded by him. PW 1 tried to resist the accused but the accused also assaulted her. At the time PW 4 was present there, they raised alarm, some of the neighbours came there on hearing the said alarm but the appellant fled away with the Mugur in his hand. The neighbours came to the P.O, thereafter Raghunath was first taken to Debra Hospital and therefrom to Medinipur Sadar Hospital
In cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cause death or the knowledge that the act was likely to c....
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....
The court established that the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when intent to kill is not proven, relying on witness credibility and evidential discrepancies.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the cases of Arjun vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Arumugam v. State to determine the categorization of t....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II due to lack of intent and the nature of the altercation.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a 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
