Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA
Vijay Pal S/o Handman Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. All the aforesaid matters, have arisen out of the common judgment dated 06.08.2016, passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Bikaner, in Session Case No.47/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Vijay Pal from offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- & in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s RI and acquitted the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant from the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC.
2. Criminal Appeal No.764/2016 filed by accused Vijay Pal against his conviction. Whereas, Criminal Appeals No.855/2016 and 242/2018 filed by the complainant as well as State against acquittal of the respondents-Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant.
3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 08.05.2010, complainant Omprakash (PW/1) submitted a written report at Police Station Chhatargarh, to the effect that on hearing commotion and cries raised by his father, he along with Rajiram proceeded to the vicinity of one Brijlal Bishnoi. There, they observed the accused persons assaulting his father. Specifically, the accused-Vijaypal st
The absence of premeditation and motive led to the appellant's conviction being altered from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC.
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 hinges on the accused's intent; insufficient evidence of intent led to reclassification from murder to culpable homicide.
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 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 ruled that lack of premeditation and motive in a mother-son homicide allows for conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead of Section 302, reflecting culpable homicide not amounting t....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide is fundamentally based on the presence or absence of intent, with actions classified under Section 304 Part II when committed without intention to....
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden quarrel without any premeditation is not murder.
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
