Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.MURALIDHAR, C.J., R.K.PATTANAIK
Trinath Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant convicted for murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. eyewitness accounts support prosecution. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. medical evidence corroborates eyewitness testimonies. (Para 10 , 11 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. accused's defense unsubstantiated by evidence. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. right to private defense does not apply. (Para 17 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. legal standards regarding self-defense clarified. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 2nd May, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in Sessions Case No.22 of 1998 [SC No.261 of 1997 (GDC)] arising out of G.R. Case No.75 of 1997 (corresponding to Rambha Police Station Case No.35 of 1997). By the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the learned trial Court convicted the present Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. The prosecution witnesses (PWs) 7 to
The right of private defense is negated when the response is disproportionate to any provocation, as established in the court's findings on the nature of the attack.
A person may be convicted under culpable homicide when the intent to kill cannot be established, especially when the act occurs without premeditation during a heated altercation.
The accused, as the initial aggressor, cannot claim self-defense against actions taken in response to his provocation, leading to the upheld conviction for murder.
The right of private defense is not available to an aggressor, and the evidence supported the conviction for murder and criminal trespass.
The court established that the use of deadly weapons in a coordinated attack indicates a common intention to kill, and the defense of private defense was not applicable as the accused did not demonst....
Murder – Plea of exercise of right of private defence cannot be sustained in isolation.
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
