SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT-AS PER EXCEPTION IV TO SECTION 300 IPC, CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER IF IT IS COMMITTED WITHOUT PREMEDITATION IN A SUDDEN FIGHT IN THE HEAT OF PASSION UPON A SUDDEN QUARREL AND WITHOUT THE OFFENDER HAVING TAKEN UNDUE ADVANTAGE AND NOT HAVING ACTED IN A CRUEL OR UNUSUAL MANNER.

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

83830984789667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

81307033349355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com


A Full Bench of the Supreme Court Comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R Shah held that as per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the  case  and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, the Full Bench opined  that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ON A REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DIVISION BENCH DECISIONS IN JOGINDER TULI VS. S.L. BHATIA, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION & CO., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF LAW IF A PLAINT IS RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 AND 10A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, FOR PRESENTATION IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, WHETHER THE SUIT SHALL PROCEED DE NOVO OR WILL IT CONTINUE FROM THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF RETURNING OF THE PLAINT.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 142(2)(a) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT