MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA
Siva Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam Represented by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Choudhury, J.
1. The present criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order 18.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case no. 72 of 2020. By the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2022, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh has convicted the accused-appellant on finding him guilty for the offence of murder and has held that the offence committed by the accused falls within Clause thirdly of Section 300, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. The accused-appellant has accordingly been sentenced under Section 302, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another month. The accused-appellant has also been found guilty for the offence under Section 447, IPC and for the offence under Section 447, IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It has been ordered that both the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The genesis of the trial of Sessions Case no. 72 of 2020 is traceable to a First Information Repo
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide was clarified, emphasizing the necessity of intent in determining the degree of culpability.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
Conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence linking the accused to the weapon used in the crim....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
The court established that intent to cause death can be inferred from the use of a lethal weapon on a vital part of the body, leading to a conviction for murder.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.