Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Jakrias Bada – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
The appellant before us faced trial for murder in S.T. Case No.158/69 of 2003 in the Court of learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh and being convicted of the said offence was sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 29.04.2004. Said judgment is impugned in the present appeal.
2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 18.06.2002 at about 8 P.M. the deceased (Herman Bada) was lying on a mat placed on a rocky surface in front of their house due to heat. His wife and daughters were separating mahua flowers from their seeds. At that time, the accused-Jakrias Bada, who is the son of the deceased from his first marriage, came and demanded his share of the land in village Mahulagaon. The deceased asked him to wait till marriage of his other son and daughters. At this, the accused was enraged and brought out a bamboo stick and assaulted the deceased with it. As a result, he died at the spot. The wife of the deceased and his daughters concealed themselves out of fear and found the deceased dead after their return with blood flowing from his nostrils. They informed the matter to Jusab Kerketta, who was the Ward Memb
The refusal of a land share does not constitute grave provocation; thus, the act remains murder when the assault is premeditated and involves a deadly weapon against a defenseless victim.
The court established that the assault on the deceased was provoked by a land dispute, determining it constituted culpable homicide rather than murder due to the lack of intent to kill.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which outlines situations where culpable homicide does not amount to murder, based on the abs....
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court determined that the accused's actions were provoked and should be classified under Section 304 Part-I rather than Section 302, acknowledging the influence of sudden provocation on culpabili....
The court modified the appellants' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the context of a sudden quarrel exacerbated by a land dispute.
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.
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
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
