Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, ANAND SHARMA
Tarachand, S/o. Shri Hamera – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. – Respondent
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. By way of filing this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 111/2022 arising out of FIR No. 18/2022, Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed hereinbelow.
2. The brief facts emerging from the record indicate that complainant Shri Kanaram (PW-09) lodged a written report (Ex.P-10) at Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur on 08.01.2022, stating that on 07.01.2022 at about 11:00 p.m., while he was at his house, he heard loud cries coming from the direction of the house of his elder brother, Hemera s/o Dalu Gameti (aged 40 years). On hearing the noise, he along with his elder brother Jota Gameti, neighbour Panna, and his sister-in-law Bhanwari Bai went towards Hemera’s house, where they saw his nephew Tara Gameti assaulting Hemera. Out of fear, Hemera moved towards the hand pump located near Mahadevji temple, but Tara allegedly followed him with a lathi and inflicted multiple blows indiscriminately on his head
The court established that an act committed in sudden passion without premeditation, leading to a single fatal blow, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IP....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
The court determined that the appellant's actions were provoked, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302, emphasizing the absence of premeditation.
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.
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 conviction was modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the context of provocation and lack of intent.
The act of the appellant was deemed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of premeditation and the nature of the quarrel, qualifying for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Culpable homicide may be reduced to lesser charges under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC when death occurs due to injuries inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation.
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 established that an act committed in the heat of passion without premeditation can be classified as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, 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
