Back
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND
Mukesh Topno, S/o. Late Lalo Topno – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 23rd September, 2015 and 7th October, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.202 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, appellant has to suffer three months’ additional simple imprisonment.
2. Jashmani Topno (informant) who is wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant, in her beyan stated that on 23.10.2011 at about 07.00 p.m. her husband Lalo Topno (deceased) and her son Mukesh Topno (appellant) were taking dinner in the house. In the meantime, her son started demanding money to purchase one motorcycle, which her husband refused on the ground that now he does not have money as he spent his entire money upon them. On this reply appellant, who was under the influence of alcohol, became ferocious and after leaving food, he rushed towards his room and brought one hockey s
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
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'....
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
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
