The Tripura High Court in the case of Sri Kalipada Roy vs The State Of Tripura (CRL.A (J) NO.47 OF 2020) upheld that if the accused had knowledge that his action of causing injuries upon the body of the victim is likely to cause death but whether he had actual intention to cause death upon the victim cannot be established it will amount to culpable homicide and not murder.
Facts of the case : Biralal Sarkar, the victim, and accused-appellant, Kalipada Roy were neighbors. On 23.06.17 in the night time, the accused appellant under the influence of liquor abused the victim and his family members using slang language. On 24.06.17 at around 6.30 a.m., the victim while taking tea went to the house of the accused appellant and asked him why he abused him and his family members using slang language. The accused-appellant on seeing the victim in his courtyard came out from his dwelling hut holding a ‘dao’ and the accused appellant started assaulting the victim with that ‘dao’. On hearing hue and cry of the victim, the informant Motilal Sarkar, his son Mridul Sarkar, his wife Rekha Sarkar and Smt. Usha Sarkar, who is the wife of the victim rushed to the house of the accused appellant and saw the accused-appellant herein assaulting the victim with a ‘dao. The accused appellant on seeing the informant and others left that place holding that ‘dao’ in his hand. The victim sustained serious injuries due to that assault. He was immediately shifted to Hospital where the Doctor on examination declared the victim dead on arrival.
After considering the material on record the judge framed a formal charge against accused-appellant, Kalipada Roy for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Judgment : After perusing the evidence as on record and after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the court was of the opinion that the accused caused injuries upon the victim with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but whether the accused-appellant herein really intended to kill the victim was not established. The sentence against the accused to suffer life imprisonment was modified and reduced to 10 years under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY