Loading...

High Court shifts conviction from ‘murder’ to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ after finding no unusual behavior in attack

The High Court of Chattisgarh has shifted the conviction of the convict from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part­I of the IPC after finding that the accussed hasn’t shown any unusual behaviour in the claimed attack on the deceased which showed that he knew that the attcak may result in death but wasn’t intending to murder the deceased intentionally.

The Court also found lapse on behalf of the family of the deceased as they took the victim to Police Station first and not the hopital. The doctor said in his statement that the life of the deceased could have been saved if she was brought to hospital immediately after death.

The case goes around wherein the sister-in-law of the covnvict has been attacked by him on the day of her marriage. The reason as disclosed was that he had acquired some liking for her and was disturbed of the fact of her getting married. The incident had two eye witnesses which gave statements against the convict and confirmed the fact that he was the one who committed the crime.

The deceased died immediately after lodging FIR to which the Court examined whether the same is admissible in evidence as dying declaration. The Court took notice of cases such as Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of UP {AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 920}, wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus in Para­10:­

Similar observation has been made by Karnataka High Court in Ismail Vs. State of Karnataka {2000 CRI.L.J. 1994}.Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the appellant would not amount to culpable homicide but it would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and at best, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part­I of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC.  He would refer  to  the  judgment  rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court in the matter of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat {(2018) 4 SCC 329}.

The Court took notice of the fact that the appellant has inflicted one single blow over the neck of the deceased which means he has not acted in cruel or unusual manner in the sense that after giving one blow he did not repeat the blow. The Court was of the considered opinion that the appellant has committed offence with knowledge that it may cause death of the deceased but had no intention to commit murder.

Considering all this the Court stated that offence would fall under Section 304 Part­I of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information