Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Irigadindla Venkataiah S/o Sathaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Talla, learned counsel for appellant-accused and Dr. S. Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.03.2018 in S.C. No.150 of 2015 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Nalgonda.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section-302 of IPC , and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year.
4. It is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to the prosecution, PW.1 is the son of deceased (Ramulu), while PW.3 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased and PW.2 are having an agricultural land at the outskirts of T. Gouraram Gate of Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District of Telangana State. The accused herein is the agnate to the deceased. PW.6 and the accused jointly cultivated groundnut crop in the leased land of the deceased. For the purpose of watering to the said crop, they brought water pipes on rent basis. On 24.
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, ruling that the accused acted impulsively without premeditation, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
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 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....
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
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
