Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Chadabhai Bhagabha Chauhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. Here is the appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated08.02.2010, passed in Sessions Case No.45 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad at Kheda, acquitted the respondents-accused under Sections 302, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. All the accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (‘B.P. Act’, for short). The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused as per the below table:
| Accused | Acquitted from charge |
| Accused no. 1 – Chadabhai Bhagabha Chauhan | Sections 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 2 – Somabhai Bhagabhai Chauhan | Sections 326, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 3 – Rameshbhai @ Timpo Chadabhai Chauhan | Acquitted from all the charges i.e. Sections 302, 307, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 4 – Raisingbhai @ Titabhai Chauhan | Acquitted from all the |
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304, Part I, emphasizing the absence of intent to kill and the nature of the incident as a sudden fight.
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, emphasizing the absence of intent to kill and the act being committed in the heat of passion.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence at the crime scene does not establish culpability without corroborative evidence.
Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It d....
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.
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
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.
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
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
