Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, V.NARASINGH
Nilakantha @ Kurkutu Biswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 302 ipc based on prosecution evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defense contends lack of evidence for conviction under section 302 ipc. (Para 8 , 9 , 15) |
| 3. court's reasoning and consideration of evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court alters conviction from section 302 ipc to 304 part-i ipc. (Para 16) |
| 5. final ruling and sentencing of the accused. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
The Appellant, in this Appeal, has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th May, 2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No.234/25/102 of 2013-14, corresponding to Charmal P.S. Case No.23 of 2013 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year.
2. Prosecution Case:-
On 14.04.2013 around 5.30 p.m. one Sasmita Biswal (Informant- P.W.1) lodged a written
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 considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
The principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a prearranged plan for joint criminal liability; mere presence does not suffice if no common purpose is established.
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 culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC and the offence under Part II of Section 304 IPC, based on the presence of intentio....
The Court ruled that provocation and lack of intent in a homicide can warrant a conviction under culpable homicide instead of murder.
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
