Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, MADHU JAIN
Mohd. Shadab – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing overview. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellants denied the charges. (Para 10) |
| 4. arguments regarding medical evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. analysis of injuries and pre-existing conditions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. legal standards for culpability and intent. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. court findings on grievous hurt. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. summary of appellant's incarceration. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. modification of conviction and sentencing. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. conclusion and direction for release. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
MADHU JAIN, J.
BACKGROUND
1. Present appeals have been filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 415 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘ BNSS ’) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 6th September, 2025 and 12th September, 2025 respectively, passed by the ld. ASJ (FTC)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the Appellants have been convicted in Sessions Case No. 28476/2016 arising out of FIR No. 224/2015 registered at P.S. Darya Ganj under Section 302 read with Section 34
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 ....
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 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 requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that injuries caused were not sufficient to lead to death, thus altering the conviction from culpable homicide to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC.
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.
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
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
