Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Past Licenses and Undertaking Prove Knowledge of Copyright License Need, Warrant Ad-Interim Injunction: Bombay HC
13 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, Ravi Chirania
Basti Ram S/o Sh. Shri Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. All the aforesaid matters, two criminal appeals and one revision petition, have arisen out of the common judgment dated 09.07.1997, passed by learned Session Judge, Pali, in Sessions Case No.78/1988 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused Smt. Pyari from offence under Sections 147 , 148, 302/149, 323, 323/149 IPC and convicted the accused-appellant No.1 Bastiram for offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC and accused-appellants No.2 to 4 namely Kalu, Champalal & Madan for offence under Section 323 IPC.
2. For offence under Section 323 IPC, the trial court sentenced the accused appellants with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo thr
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 distinction between murder and culpable homicide depends on the presence of intent; absence of premeditation warrants a lesser charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Absence of premeditation and intent to kill during an altercation qualifies the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II.
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.
Culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a fit of passion during a sudden quarrel, as determined by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 302 and Section 300 of the IPC, and the interpretation of Exception 4 under Section 300. The court'....
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.
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
Listen Article