#IPC Archives - Page 5 of 9

16 Dec

TITLE : Digambar @ Digu Baburao Shirole V The State of Maharashtra

CITATION : Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2018

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi And Hon’ble justice Abhay S. Waghwase

DATE: 15^th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The appeal was filed by the appellant after Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned District Judge for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine.

FACTS :

The deceased and the accused had gotten into a quarrel and it subsequently led to an attack on the deceased. The brother of the deceased filed a police complaint. The prosecution in the district court took evidence from 13 witnesses and documentary evidence like FIR, post mortem report, recovery panchanama which is now questioned by way of instant appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court analysed the autopsy report which held that the cause of death due to liver injury and blunt trauma. The star witness of the trial claimed that on refusal to comply with the demand of extra saplings, quarrel erupted between accused and deceased and accused appellant had put to use very handle of a spade and beaten deceased. The court analysed Section 300 which talks about what leads to culpable homicide and not murder. In that, death arising out of sudden fight is not murder.

The court held that there was no motive, intention or premeditation. Incident has taken place all of a sudden only on refusal to comply with the demand of extra saplings. The sudden death is covered under exception 4 of Sec 300 therefore it wouldn’t attract murder under Sec 302.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

12 Dec

Circumstantial evidence is not enough to sustain murder charges : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #IPC, #law, #legalnews, #SEction302

TITLE : Vijay v The state of Maharashtra

CITATION : Criminal Appeal No of 84 of 2018

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Vibha Kankanwadi & Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

DATE: 6^th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The appellant is challenging the sessions court in offences pertaining to Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his wife and causing the evidence to disappear.

FACTS :

The deceased was married to the accused with two sons and one daughter. The daughter and one of the sons passed away earlier and the accused continuously abused the wife. He even doubted the chastity of his wife and assaulted her.

On one occasion the wife stayed at her brother in law’s house due to the continuous abuse. The next day after her return, she was found dead in a water barrel with her saree and hair floating in the tank.

The trial judge after hearing both the parties sent the accused to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- along with rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed under Section 302 and rigorous punishment for another five years for the offence committed under Section 201 IPC.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

It has been submitted by the counsel of the appellant that the evidence was entirely circumstantial, and the chain of events must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The forensic expert claimed that the exact cause of death cannot be found in the body. The prosecution’s cross examination and witnesses were not satisfactory to provide substantial evidence. The court opined that mere fact of the accused continuously abused the deceased does not mean that he is the killer. Additionally, since there was no sufficient evidence to conclude the prosecutor’s case, the court acquitted the accused from the charges of Section 302 and Section 210 of IPC.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement.

11 Dec

Grave and Sudden provocation doctrine not universal ; Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #IPC, #law, #legalnews, #murder

TITLE : Santosh Balaji Nagrale v State of Maharashtra

CITATION : Criminal Application no 1041//2023

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke

DATE: 9th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The applicant was seeking bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

FACTS :

The applicant was arrested on 9^th July 2022 and since then he was in jail. The accusations was based on the report based by the wife of the deceased. The accused is the deceased’s brother. The deceased and the applicant lived in a joint family set up and the deceased had an addiction problem with alcohol.

In a quarrel between the applicant’s wife and the deceased after he abused her and subsequently killed by inserting a knife in the deceased’s chest which was done multiple times. The FIR suggested that this was a case of grave and sudden provocation. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased was stabbed 16 times on the vital parts of his body.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The prosecutor claimed that this was not a case of grave and sudden provocation as the accused interfered between the quarrel. He also added that there was 17 injuries out of which 16 are from stab injuries, making it clear that it was not a sudden reaction. The counsel for applicant argued that this was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 of the IPC.

The court held that the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation does not have a universal application and it may depend upon case to case basis. The court further held that in the present case, the exception under Section 304, i.e grave and sudden provocation is not applicable as there were multiple stab wounds thereby creating an intention to kill.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement.

7 Dec

Bombay HC acquits a person due to the lack of incriminating evidence in a homicide trial : Motive, Last seen together and DNA evidence not sufficient.

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #IPC, #law, #legalnews, #sec302IPC

TITLE : Ganesh Bhatu Shinde V The state of Maharashtra

CITATION : Criminal Appeal 549 of 2018

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Smt.Vibha Kankanwadi and Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

DATE: 7^th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

There being charge of Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, it is necessary to be seen whether in the trial Court prosecution has established death of Deceased to be nothing but homicidal.

FACTS :

The appellant was alleged of a murder as he had an dispute with the deceased. It is the story of the prosecution that, appellant had approached deceased on 14-08-2015 for compromising the matter and accordingly, deceased was taken to the Court but there deceased put up conditions which angered appellant and thereby he was taken, assaulted and his body was finally disposed of at a remote place which was finally spotted by Police Patil and then Police came in picture.

One of the witnesses claimed that the death was of due to vehicular accident. However the autopsy doctor held that there was no injury to sustain the argument of vehicular accident and the death is of homicidal nature.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court held that since there was animosity and further, deceased putting up conditions for withdrawal had also allegedly angered appellant is sufficient motive along with the fact that the deceased allegedly abused the appellant in filthy language. Secondly, the appellant was the last person the deceased was seen with alive. However the court relied upon the witnesses and held that The proximity of time since last seen together and deceased found dead being considerably huge, it is improper to connect appellant with the death. As of the DNA marks of the appellant on the deceased, it was held that there was no sufficient incriminating evidence to prove the same as the quantity of DNA found was very less.

The appellant was acquitted and the charges against him under Section 102 IPC was quashed.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

14 Nov

Legal Precision Prevails: Court’s Rigorous Analysis Leads to Quashing of Charges in Favor of Petitioners

Prime Legal

Blog #IPC, #judgement, #law, #LEGAL

Title: Ashutosh Tiwari, Kamlesh Shukla vs The State of M.P & Vikas Khare

Citation: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6138 of 2010

Coram: HON’BLE JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

Decided on: 6-11-2023

Introduction:

The petitioners have filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) seeking the quashing of proceedings in complaint case No. 218/2010. This case is currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Shahdol. The counsel for the petitioners highlights that a stay over the proceedings was initially granted by the court on July 7, 2010, until the next date of hearing. Subsequently, this stay was continued on March 15, 2013, and May 2, 2014. However, after the latter date, the case was not listed before the court. The council requests a hearing for the case, emphasising that it has been pending before the court since 2010.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The petitioners are seeking to quash proceedings in complaint case No.218/2010, where they are accused of offences under Section 294, 506(II) of IPC, and 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The petitioner’s counsel argues that no offence is made out, emphasising that the alleged abusive remarks occurred in a school staff room, which is not a public place. They contend that the remarks don’t fall under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as it requires a place within public view.

Furthermore, the defence asserts that Section 294 of IPC, which deals with obscene acts or utterances, applies only to public places. The government advocate argues that the staff room can be considered a public place as other teachers were present during the alleged incident. Respondent No.2, the complainant, is not actively pursuing the case, leading to the court proceeding ex parte.

The relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 3(1)(x)), and the Indian Penal Code (Sections 294 and 503) are invoked in this case. The crux of the matter lies in whether the staff room is deemed a public place and if the alleged acts and utterances fulfil the legal criteria for the stated offences.

Court analysis and order:

The judgment in this case reflects the court’s consideration of the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the government advocate. Here is an analysis of the judgment: The court carefully examines the definitions provided in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 3(1)(x)), and the Indian Penal Code (Section 294 and 503). It emphasizes that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, the act must occur in public view. The court addresses the crucial point of whether the staff room qualifies as a public place, asserting that the staff room is not within public view. Emphasis is placed on the restricted access to the staff room, stating that the common public or citizens cannot enter without school permission. The court extends its analysis to Section 294 of the IPC, highlighting that the alleged abuses did not take place in a public location, reiterating that the staff room does not qualify as a public place.

The judgment scrutinizes the complainant’s statement and notes the absence of any mention of alarm caused by the alleged threats. It concludes that an offence under Section 506 of IPC is not established. Based on the considerations above, the court allows the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court quashes the proceedings in complaint Case No.218/2010 against the petitioners, involving charges under Section 294, 506(II) of IPC & 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.

The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and disposed of. The judgment concludes by mentioning the issuance of a certified copy as per the rules. In summary, the court’s decision rests on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and a meticulous examination of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences. The finding is in favour of the petitioners, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Sudden fight not murder under Section 302 IPC – Bombay HC

Circumstantial evidence is not enough to sustain murder charges : Bombay HC

Grave and Sudden provocation doctrine not universal ; Bombay HC

Bombay HC acquits a person due to the lack of incriminating evidence in a homicide trial : Motive, Last seen together and DNA evidence not sufficient.

Legal Precision Prevails: Court’s Rigorous Analysis Leads to Quashing of Charges in Favor of Petitioners