Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that since the convict assaulted his wife with a brick in the spur of the moment, the case would fall under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, i.e., Section 304-II of the IPC.
“It was inexplicable and incomprehensible how a mother who loved her children and who had a cordial relation with her husband could resort to such a violent act and be attributed with the “intention to cause death” of her beloved children, except for coming under some influence or forces beyond her control as claimed by her.”
On 12-02-2025, the Court found Sajjan Kumar guilty of inter alia murder, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, attempt to commit culpable homicide, dacoity, arson, and mischief.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“If a soft stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casualties for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region.”
“There is no rule that in case of every child witness, the trial Court should conduct a preliminary examination. It is only a rule of prudence and not a legal obligation. ”
The police had initially charged the elected members under S. 304 of IPC; however, the Court upon prima-facie finding of negligence, quashed the charge under S. 304, IPC and charged the petitioners under S. 304-A, IPC.
Supreme Court noted that this is not a case of pre-planned murder as the incident started with a fight between children for “mangoes” which unfortunately flared up when the adults of the families also got involved which ultimately led to the deceased, the father of one of the children, being killed.
Allahabad High Court noted that the deceased survived for seven days, thereafter he succumbed to this injury, and viewed that a single injury caused by throwing a piece of brick, which is not a handheld weapon, cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death.
“There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.”
Supreme Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.
Based on the weapon used for inflicting injuries to the deceased was a very heavy danda with nodes therein, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, it failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged offence was not committed by pre-meditation.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, and further held that a lapse of time in death would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
Madras High Court while dealing with the question that whether the mother had the intention to commit the murder of her daughter, set aside the conviction and sentence of the convict for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted her for offence under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment
“It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he/she is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police must arrest the accused and put them up for trial”.
Without there being any evidence as to the presence of the accused in the house at the time of the death of the deceased, especially when the material witnesses turned hostile, convicting the accused basing on the assumptions and presumptions by the Sessions Court was erroneous.
The conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been set aside by the Delhi High Court more than 19 years after the appeal was filed, due to the persistent inability to locate or reconstruct the trial court record.
Bombay High Court : In an appeal filed questioning the legality of Judgment and convicting both Appellants i.e. a father
Calcutta High Court: Sugato Majumdar, J. allowed a criminal appeal which was assailed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge