Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Arnesh Harizon, S/o. Sri Paresh Harizon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By Learned Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Mazumdar, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed from Jail by the accused convict against the order dated 13-09-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 38/2022. The Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee had appointed Ms. N. Hassan, learned Advocate to render legal assistance to the appellant herein.
2. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal from Jail was filed on 12th June 2024. Notices were issued to the respondent No. 2/informant on 27-05-2024 and the services were completed on 03-06-2024. The respondent No. 2 did not enter appearance.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and we have also heard the arguments put forward by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. The brief facts of the case as reflected from the records is that on 30-11- 2021 the informant had lodged an FIR at Harisinga Police Station stating that on 27-11-2021 at about 3:00 P.M her husband went to the tea garden line of the appellant herein and following an altercation, the appellant assaulted her husband with hands and legs. The husband of the informant suffered injuries for which he was admitted to the
Conviction modified to Section 304 A IPC as prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with intent or knowledge to cause death; incident deemed accidental.
The absence of direct evidence proving intent or knowledge of causing grievous injury negates culpability under Section 304 IPC.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder established when the accused acted with knowledge that her actions could result in death, despite lacking intent to kill.
The court established that the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when intent to kill is not proven, relying on witness credibility and evidential discrepancies.
Culpable homicide distinguished from murder based on intention and knowledge; knowledge suffices for conviction under Section 304(II) of IPC, while failure to explain accused injuries does not negate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the need for intent and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 IPC to determine the guilt of the accused for causing fatal injuries leading to the death of the deceased.
Modifying conviction from murder to manslaughter due to lack of intent and premeditation, establishing a precedent for considering trivial disputes in assessing culpability.
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
