Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Tulsi Satnami, S/o. Tukru Satnami – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The appellants herein have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-12-2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.61/2017, by which they have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional simple imprisonment for one year.
2. The two appellants herein, father, aged about 70 years on the date of offence, and son, have stood trial before the Sessions Judge, Mungeli for committing the murder of Chandrika Bai – neighbour, on 28-6- 2017 at about 3.30 p.m. at Village Dandgaon, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli and they were stand convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the allegation that they had assaulted deceased Chandrika Bai by hands & fists by which she suffered injuries on 28-6-2017 and died after ten days on 7-7-2017. The incident is said to be reported by Priya Das Gendle (PW-2) and the incident was witnessed by Ranu Gendle (PW-3) –
The court ruled that the lack of intent to kill by the accused requires a conviction adjustment from murder to grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC.
Conviction for murder requires intent; if harm results from a pre-existing condition, and no intention to kill is proven, a conviction may be adjusted to grievous hurt under IPC.
The absence of intent to kill or knowledge that actions could likely cause death, alongside significant pre-existing health issues of the deceased, led to the alteration of conviction from murder to ....
In the absence of knowledge regarding the victim's pre-existing medical conditions, the accused cannot be convicted of murder; charges may only transition to lesser offenses under Section 323 IPC.
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The lack of evidence identifying which appellant inflicted the fatal injury necessitates a conviction reduction to a lesser charge.
The judgment established the importance of proving the intention to cause a specific bodily injury and the sufficiency of the injury to cause death in cases of culpable homicide under Section 300 of ....
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
