Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, V.NARASINGH
Parsuram Kisan – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding level of offence (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. ratio decidendi supporting alteration of conviction (Para 12) |
| 5. final conclusion and order (Para 13 , 14) |
Judgment :
D.Dash, J.
The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th October, 2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.60/68 of 2010 arising out of G.R Case No.43 of 2010, corresponding to Badmal P.S. Case No.8 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Jharsuguda.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for commission of the said offence.
2. PROSECUTION CASE:-
On 12.01.2010 in between 6.00 am to 6.30 am, when the wife of the elder brother of th
Court altered conviction from murder to manslaughter under Section 304-I, emphasizing spontaneity and lack of premeditation in rural contexts.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304-I, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill during the altercation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under section 304-II of t....
The Court ruled that provocation and lack of intent in a homicide can warrant a conviction under culpable homicide instead of murder.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the legal provisions under section 302 and section 304 of the IPC in the context of the evidence presented....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of sudden provocation as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate offence under the Indian Penal Code.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I, considering the absence of prior intent and planning.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II due to lack of intent and the nature of the altercation.
Criminal Law – Conviction – Murder - Single blow was dealt in the spur of moment and it was not with intention to cause his death – Conviction under 304 upheld
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
