Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Shankar Yadav, Son of Late Debi Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the sole appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment vide judgment dated 6th/7th June, 1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. Case No.80 of 1996 arising out of Pathergama P.S. Case No.128 of 1995.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell is that on 06.11.1995, some unknown persons have cut and destroyed the pumpkin plants (kaddu) belonging to the brother-in-law(devar) of the informant Sahchari Devi. It is alleged that due to above reason in the evening at about 8:00 PM, the female members namely Kamla Devi and Suniya Devi of Dilmohan Yadav (devar of the informant) started scuffling and abusing, which was protested by the informant’s husband Bhuneshwar Yadav and suggested to settle the matter peacefully. Meanwhile, the present appellant having a lathi came to the informant’s house and dragged her husband towards road and thereafter indiscriminately assaulted him by lathi due to which he sustained severe head injuries. The wife and the daughter of the appellant have also assaulted her husband
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 court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
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 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 ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
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.
Exception IV to Section 300 IPC allows for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights or quarrels without premeditation or undue advantage.
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.
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
