LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label not amounting to murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label not amounting to murder. Show all posts
Saturday, May 4, 2013

NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER = The deceased objected to the appellant beating the dog, whereupon the appellant started abusing the former and told him to keep quiet or else he too would be beaten like a dog. The exchange of hot words, it appears, led to a scuffle between the deceased and the accused persons in the course whereof, while accused Nos.2 and 3 beat the deceased with fist and kicks, the appellant hit the deceased with the iron pipe on the head. On account of the injury inflicted upon him, the deceased fell to the ground whereupon all the three accused persons ran away from the spot. = whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has been rightly convicted for the capital offence and if not whether the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of the I.P.C.= In the result, we allow this appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms in modification of the order passed by the Courts below. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrars General of the High Courts in the country for circulation among the Judges handling criminal trials and hearing appeals.

›
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C...
Thursday, October 18, 2012

whether the criminal act committed by accused nos.1, 6 and 7 amounts to murder under Section 300, IPC, or some other offence. The medical evidence of PW- 11 is clear that all the injuries of the deceased were most probably as a result of an assault by a blunt weapon and in the opinion of PW- 11, the deceased appears to have died due to head injuries. PW-11 has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see any incised injuries during the post mortem examination and had a sickle been used it would have caused incised wounds. Thus, it appears that accused no.1 and accused no.6 had used not the sharp side but the blunt side of the aruval and accused no.7 had used the stick in the assault on the deceased. The fact that the blunt side of the aruval and a stick was used in the assault on the deceased would go to show that accused nos.1, 6 and 7 did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased. Nonetheless, the injuries caused by accused nos.1, 6 and 7 were all on the head of the deceased, including his parietal and temporal regions. Accused nos.1, 6 and 7, thus, had the intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death and were liable for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, IPC.- the deceased died after nine days of the assault, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court and the High Court were not right in convicting the appellants under Section 302, IPC, and the appellants should have been convicted instead under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34, IPC.

›
                                                                  Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...