Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, VINOD DIWAKAR
Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Diwakar, J.
As per the version of the First Information Report dated 5.7.1979, certain children of the family of the first informant - Budhiram, had taken out their cattle for grazing and there they had an altercation with the children of the family of Kishun Chauhan who was living in the neighbourhood. When the alteration occurred between the children and certain noises were made because of that from the village of the Chauhans, Rajendra, Surendra & Mahendra sons of Sukhai Chauhan; Kishun son of Ramnath, Fauji & Ramchandra sons of Kishun; Bahadur and Tejas sons of Raghunandan came on the spot. It has been stated in the First Information Report that Rajendra was carrying a Ballam; Surendra and Mahendra were carrying lathies; Kishun was also having a lathi; Fauji and Ramchandra were having Ballam; Subedar, Bahadur and Tejas were carrying lathis.
2. As per the F.I.R. version apprehending that there would be a scuffle between the children who were grazing the cattle with the grownup persons. Balram, Sarvjeet and Shrinath who were the relatives of the first informant reached the spot. Again there was a fight between the two sides and Balram, Ramcharan and Shrinath were gr
The court established that an act committed in the heat of passion without premeditation can be classified as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, not murder.
The court ruled that a sudden quarrel without premeditation led to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
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 court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
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 modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
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
