Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Md. Anwar – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No.1 of October, 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No.68/2007, thereby convicting the appellants i.e., Anup Shaw, Sudhir Shaw under Section 304 (Part-II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each and others appellants i.e., Bikash Paswan, Md. Anwar under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each.
2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 30.04.2007 at about 16:15 hours two groups of boys brawled over positioning in a playground at Lovers Lane and K.P. Road beside Race-Course Ground, where a group of boys including the appellants were playing cricket and another group were to playing football simultaneously. Altercation aggrav
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, and absence of these elements can lead to a lesser charge.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is crucial in culpable homicide cases, affecting the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
Point of law: It is true that the injury possible by fall on hard surface but depending on the force. It is true an alcoholic may sustain easily the rupture of blood vessels even at the slightest vio....
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 established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
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
