Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, Ravi Chirania
Chhabila Ram S/o Ami Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 302 ipc affirmed initially (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contradictions and negligence in treatment questioned (Para 3 , 10 , 17) |
| 3. procedural history and trial details outlined (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court weighs testimonies and medical evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. distinction between murder and culpable homicide defined (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. lack of premeditation indicates culpable homicide (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. conviction altered to section 304 part i ipc (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 05.06.2013 passed by learned Special Additional District and Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.56/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 08.04.2012 at about 09:30 AM, Shri
The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was altered to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC due to lack of evidence for intent and premeditation.
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 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 court held that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of premeditation and presence of heat of passion.
The court clarified that actions under intoxication leading to death may constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder itself.
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 modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of 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
