Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)
1. This criminal appeal from Jail has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.49/2015 (CIS No.1339/2015) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal), whereby the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Conviction under Section(s) | Sentence(s) | Fine(s) |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further Three Months’ S.I. |
| 326 IPC | Seven Years’ R.I. | Rs.3,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further One Month’s S.I. |
| 329 IPC | Seven Years’ R.I. | Rs.3,000/- in default of which, to undergo further One Month’s S.I. |
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 15.05.2011, one Raunak Jain (complainant), while being at Maharana Bhupal Hospital (Ward No.33), submitted a written report before the SHO, Police Station, Surajpole, Udaipur stating therein that the complainant owned a shop, namely
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
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 found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
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 court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
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 ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder 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
