Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
Kasam @ King Mohmadbhai Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the sole appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Sessions Court, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.86 of 2012 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short is that, prior to the offence, the appellant-accused was stalking the aunt of the deceased and was following her. The parties are resident of Village:Dabhoi, Dist:Vadodara. The aunt of the deceased PW.8 Shahenaz Mansuri, on 18.01.2012, went to market for purchasing vegetables, but she could not purchase it because the appellant-accused was following her and due to his fear, she came at home without purchasing the vegetables. On arrival of her at home, she narrated the harassment meted out to her to her nephew–deceased Jave
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intent; insufficient evidence of intent led to reclassification from murder to culpable homicide.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the absence of intent to kill warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 302 and Section 300 of the IPC, and the interpretation of Exception 4 under Section 300. The court'....
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the offender's intention and knowledge of the likely fatal consequences of their actions.
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.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
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
Listen Article