Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, ANUROOP SINGHI
Vachna, S/o Shankra – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. By way of filing this instant appeal under Section 374 (ii) Cr.P.C., the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 10.07.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Sessions Case No. 51/99 (18/98), whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment, and also convicted under Section 341 and sentenced to one month’s simple imprisonment, with both the sentences directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.11.1997, Bhura s/o Uka Bhil, resident of Borta, lodged a written report (Exhibit P-10) at Police Station Modra while being at Modra Hospital. In the report, it was alleged that the complainant and his brother Bharatiya resided in separate households at Borata Bhawri but in close proximity. On 15.11.1997 at about 6:00 p.m., accused Vachna came to the house of Bharatiya and took him along. When Bharatiya did not return till about 9:00 p.m., the complainant went out in search of him. Near Jakrana Nala, the complainant heard cries of his brother
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and medical evidence raise doubts on intent and culpability under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 4 to section 300 of the IPC to determine the nature of the accused's act and the appropriate charge under the IPC.
The Court ruled that provocation and lack of intent in a homicide can warrant a conviction under culpable homicide instead of murder.
The court ruled the absence of premeditated intent in the assault, leading to a modification of the conviction from murder to a lesser charge under section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served, acknowledging the appellant's age and absence of prior offenses.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to cause death is a crucial factor in determining whether an act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable h....
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
