Back
SUMAN SHYAM, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Monuranjan Gogoi @ Biranjan Gogoi, S/o. Late Gunaram Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)
1. Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state of Assam.
2. This Criminal Appeal (Jail) has been registered on receipt of a petition of appeal filed by the appellant, namely, Shri Monuranjan Gogoi, who is presently serving out his sentence in the Central Jail, Dibrugarh. The petition of appeal has been forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dibrugarh. In this Appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment dated 17.10.2022 and order dated 19.10.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 52/2019, whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
The court affirmed that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of provocation.
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 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.
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 main legal point established is that the appellant's actions did not qualify as a sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, as the deceased did not provoke the appellant and the ap....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting the appellant's claims of lack of evidence and premeditation. The court dismissed the appellant's plea for a less....
Culpable homicide may be reduced to a lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, as per Exception 4 ....
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.
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
