Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Madan Pal Singh
Jumma Shah – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Madan Pal Singh, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2016 (State Vs. Jumma Shah and two others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 1020 of 2016, under Sections 302 /34, 323/34 IPC , Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:
| Sl No | Section | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, 30 days simple imprisonment to each. |
| (ii) | 323/34 IPC | One year imprisonment to each. |
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:
(i). The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of written report dated 31.05.2016 of the informant Parveen, wife of the deceased (Gulfam), resident of Anandpur @ Bhagwantapur, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, which has been exhibited as Ext. Ka-2, a first information report was lodged alleging therein that her chachera father-in-law Jumma Shah (appellant no.1) and Husnain Ali (appellant no.2) had put a hurdle in her pathway by putting a block of w
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden quarrel.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine the appropriate offense based on the nature of injuries and intention.
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 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.
Culpable homicide may be reduced to a lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, as per Exception 4 ....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
The court established that a sudden fight without premeditation can lead to a conviction 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
