Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, CHITTARANJAN DASH
Gokul Chandra Samal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments by the parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence analysis and findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. alteration of conviction and reasoning. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
By the Bench: The appellant Gokul Chandra Samal faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No.61-A/24 of 1998/2000 for commission of offences punishable under sections 302/323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter the 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 04.11.1997 in between 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. at B.R. Colony, Qrs. No.7, F.C.I Talcher, he intentionally committed murder of Bibhuti Bhusan Hota (hereinafter 'the deceased') so also voluntarily caused hurt to Bikash Kumar Hota (P.W.9), the son of the deceased. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000, found the appellant guilty of both the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 323 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case, as per the firs
The court ruled that murder can be reclassified as culpable homicide based on the context of a sudden quarrel, affirming the importance of intent and situation in determining criminal liability.
The relationship of eyewitnesses to a deceased does not undermine their credibility; eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary weight.
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
The court determined that while the appellants participated in an unlawful assembly leading to death, their intent was not murder, qualifying the offense under culpable homicide not amounting to murd....
Point of Law : Deceased and Appellant were both inebriated and the quarrel between them was sudden and heated, it cannot be reasonably said that the Appellant has acted in an unusual manner.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
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
