MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MITALI THAKURIA
Albish Banda @ Lakra Baksa, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Thakuria, J
Heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. S. H. Mahmud, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2/informant.
2. This jail appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred against the judgment & order dated 24.02.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, BTAD, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 114/2019, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the accused/appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.03.2019, one Uday Ekka, Village- Uttar Diringapur, lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge of Barbari Police Station alleging that on the same day, at around 2.30 p.m., while his minor son- Rajen Ekka, aged about 7 (seven) years, was playing in his nearby homestead gate after returning from school, the accused-Albish Banda of
The court clarified that mere teasing does not constitute grave provocation sufficient to reduce a murder charge under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Culpable homicide can be reduced from murder to a lesser charge if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, as outlined in Section 300 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court affirmed that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of provocation.
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 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 affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
(1) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span – Presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and ....
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
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.