Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.MISHRA, SAVITRI RATHO
Rabinarayan Gochhayat – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction and nature of offense. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. distinction between culpable homicide and murder. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's ruling on appropriate charge. (Para 19) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
The sole appellant-Rabinarayan Gochhayat assails his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity) and to undergo imprisonment for life, recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.11/42 of 1997, vide., judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st October, 2000.
02. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
02.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the informant apprehending that the accused persons may dispose of the dead body of her husband (deceased Sapana Swain) immediately rushed to the Police Station, but she was advised not to proceed to the Police Station alone and as such, she was returning to her house. When she was near Bhalu Bazar, she found
The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and that not amounting to murder hinges on the presence of intention and the nature of the injury inflicted, defined under Sections 299 a....
The judgment establishes the importance of proving the accused's intention to cause death or inflict bodily injury likely to cause death in determining whether an offense constitutes culpable homicid....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder lies in the intention of the accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the appellant's act was committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cr....
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
