Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, SANJEET PUROHIT
Kalu S/o Shri Lalu, by caste Bheel – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. convicted for murder under ipc. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 03/2004 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 IPC, 341 IPC & 323 IPC and passed the sentences as under :-
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.07.2003, an oral report was lodged by complainant Gheesu lal Kumawat to the effect that on 17.07.2003 when he was returning to his village alongwith one Gopi lal towards Rojada village after collecting the stray cattle, one person came armed with stick and threatened to take away stray cattle else he will kill them. Suddenly, the said person assaulted Gopi lal with stick on his head and face and legs. Gopi lal fell down and became unconscious. The complainant managed to pick him up and reached the well where, Kachru, Gheesu, Heera lal, Ramlal came who took him to hospital at Chittorgarh.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced various documentary evidence in support of its case. Thereafter the statement of
The court clarified that absence of premeditation and intent in a sudden quarrel may shift the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide lies in the presence of intent and premeditation, with spontaneous acts being treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder depends on the presence of intent and premeditation, especially in cases of sudden provocation.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden quarrel.
The court established that absence of intention to kill, even in a fatal altercation, can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of intention and premeditation in categorizing the offence under the Indian Penal Code.
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.
The court altered the conviction from Section 304 Part-I IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing the absence of intent to kill and the nature of the incident as impulsive.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
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
