Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Rabi@Rabindra Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The appellants question the correctness of the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul on 03.04.2001 in Sessions Trial Nos.133-A/1998 (1 of 1998), whereby they were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 /148 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that a piece of government land in village Kampasal in Angul district was under the possession of deceased-Sukadev Dehury. Having heard on the evening of 30.01.1998 that members of Keuta community had raised ridges to encroach upon said land, he, accompanied by his son Sanatan and brother Somanath, went to the spot at about 7.00 a.m. on the next day. Seeing that ridges had been constructed, they dismantled the same with their hands. At that time, the mother of Jharu Behera came and protested, whereupon Biswanath (informant) told her that the land had been measured in the previous year and found to be government land as per the R.I.’s version and that if it was found to belong to the objectors, they would give up the same. Hearing this, the mother of Jharu went away. Half an hour later, accused Jharu Behera, his son Rabi Be
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 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 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 court established that the act of the accused was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as it was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while individuals have the right to private defence of their property, causing death in excess of this right constitutes an offence under the ....
Murder and attempt to murder – In a case of free fight between parties where both parties have sustained injuries, benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended.
The court ruled that the incident was a sudden fight, reducing the conviction of appellant No.1 from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part-II of IPC.
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
Murder – Plea of exercise of right of private defence cannot be sustained in isolation.
The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.
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
