Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV
Kali Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Ms. Mary Punch (Sheeba Jose) and Mohd. Kalim learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Patanjali Mishra learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.1996 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad whereby appellant Kali Prasad has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment.
3. The first information report regarding the incident occurred on 29.6.1994 at about 11:30 AM, at the Phaphamau Railway Crossing, was lodged by Sri Ram Prakash Singh (PW-5) with the thumb impressions of the eye-witnesses PW-2 Ashok Kumar and PW-3 Ramesh Kumar Sharma. As per the eye-witness account as narrated in the written report, on the fateful day, i.e. on 29.6.1994, deceased Ram Aasre Bhartiya was driving a Truck No. UP70 9822 when he reached at the Phaphamau Railway Crossing at about 11:30 AM, the crossing gate was closed to pass a train. As soon as the gate was opened when the train crossed over, deceased Ram Aasre Bhartiya moved his vehicle (truck) to cross the railway track. At the same time, one Truck No. UP65 B8551 also moved forward from the o
Offence of Murder - Incident had occurred in a sudden fight, without any premeditation in the state of anger, the offence committed by the appellant, thus, would fall within the meaning of “culpable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'culpable homicide amounting to murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 of the Indian Pen....
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 distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation i....
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 modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
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
