Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mridul Kumar Kalita
Abdul Kalam Sheikh, S/O Adul Nur – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, to be represented by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal challenges the conviction based on sudden quarrel. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. incident and charges against appellants (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defense arguments against conviction (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence (Para 38 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. distinction between murder and culpable homicide (Para 39 , 46 , 48) |
| 6. court emphasizes lack of premeditation and the incident's spontaneous nature. (Para 44) |
| 7. final ruling and sentence modification based on previous detention. (Para 49) |
| 8. modification of sentence and release order (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J
1. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. J. Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellants, namely, (1) Abdul Kalam Sheikh (hereinafter also referred to as A-1) and (2) Abdul Hai Sk. (hereinafter also referred to as A-2), challenging the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 pass
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the appellant's act was committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cr....
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
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.
The distinction between intention and knowledge is critical in determining culpability for homicide, impacting the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
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....
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....
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.
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
