#murder Archives - Page 4 of 6

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

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.

23 Nov

The Kerala High Court overturns the conviction of a UP couple for murder after they disposed of an infant’s body in the sea, believing it to be dead.

Prime Legal

Blog #infant, #keralahighcourt, #murder

Title: Prathibha v. State of Kerala

Decided on: 22 November, 2023

+ Criminal Appeal Nos.277 & 676 of 2019

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar

Introduction

The Kerala High Court considered whether it was appropriate to convict someone of culpable homicide under section 299 IPC if the baby’s body was thrown into the water despite being thought to be dead.

Facts of the Case

It was alleged that on October 10, 2015, the parents of the six-month-old daughter, the accused 1 and 2, had injured the child’s head and thrown the child’s body into the sea. October 16, 2015, the infant’s body was discovered in the ocean. The third accused was found guilty by the Sessions Court of helping the parents dispose of the body after they were found guilty of murder. Accused 1 and 2 have chosen to file an appeal with the High Court challenging their murder conviction.

Courts analysis and decision

The Court pointed out that the parents were only charged with disposing of the body in the sea, not with causing head injuries. The appellants’ submission, according to which they disposed of the body in the water in accordance with their burial ritual since they thought the infant was dead, was noted by the court. The Court also reviewed the witness statements and concluded that they raised suspicions that the child had been physically abused by someone; nevertheless, it pointed out that this did not establish the abuse was the result of the parents’ actions. It also noted the behaviour of the appellant mother, who brought the kid to the hospital for treatment of a hand injury. According to the social worker’s testimony, the appellant mother was discovered crying while holding the baby at the hospital. The prosecution failed to present any evidence that would have allowed the court to conclude that the parents knew the child was alive when the body was being disposed of in the water, the court noted. The Court further decided that Section 299 IPC is covered by the subtitle “of offences affecting life” and Chapter XVI, which are both captioned “of offences affecting the human body.” It was stated that the clause could not apply to the current situation because the parents did not want to kill the child or cause them any bodily harm, nor did they know that their actions would result in the infant’s death. According to the ruling, activities done on a baby that are performed with the belief that the child is dead are exempt from section 299 IPC. In light of this, the Court cleared the parents and overturned their conviction under Sections 302, 201, read with Section 34 IPC.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

22 Nov

Sustained subtractions made under the foregoing scheme regarding the rights of an employee to claim the automatic benefit of the new pension scheme – The High Court of Allahabad

Prime Legal

Blog #murder, Allahabad High court

+Writ – 20745 of 2019

Case title: Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Bench And Another

Appearance

Petitioner : Narendra Pratap Singh

Respondent: – Rishabh Agarwal, Shivam Pandey, Vinod Kumar

CORAM: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

Order dated:9.10.2023

Introduction

The High Court of Allahabad had contended that without certain evidence in the manner examined under the memorandum of office, it cannot opt to say that an employee staying under the previous pension scheme.

Facts of the case

writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in Original Application No.330/203/2019, Jai Prakash Mishra versus Union of India and 4 others. By that order, the Tribunal has allowed that Original Application and declared the private respondent entitled to a pension under the GPF-cumPension scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the GPF scheme”) as against the CPF scheme to which the respondent had been held entitled to, by the petitioner Union of India.

The facts of the case fall within a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Primary Teacher by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan He retired on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Biology), At the time of his retirement the respondent was not granted the benefit of the GPF scheme. counsel for the petitioner Union of India would submit, that the respondent had opted in favor of the CPF scheme before the cut-off date of 28.02.1989. Referring to the Supplementary Affidavit filed in these proceedings, it has been strenuously urged-arising from that choice expressed, the respondent was allotted CPF Account Contributions were made accordingly. The respondent never objected to that arrangement during his years in service. Only after four years of retirement, a false claim was made by him, in that regard.

counsel for the respondent would contend, that the Office Memorandum created a legal fiction that the claim of all existing employees of the KVS would migrate to GPF scheme. That deeming fiction could be reversed by any employee by specifically opting to be retained under the CPF scheme. Therefore non-exercise of the option by the respondent gave rise to absolute legal effect caused by the legal fiction i.e. to migrate the respondent to the GPF scheme, on the own force of the law. No other or further action was required to be taken by the employee to perfect his right under the GPF scheme. Also, emphasis has been laid on the fact that that option had to be exercised only once that too before the cut-off

merely because the petitioner may have continued to make deductions and account for the same under the CPF scheme, it did not have the effect of overriding the legal fiction created by the Office Memorandum Such conduct on the part of the Union did not create any other legal right to the parties

Verdict of the High Court

The Court found, in no uncertain terms that it was admitted to the employee (in that case) that he had opted for the CPF scheme upon enforcement of the Office Memorandum dated 01.01.1989. Under finality attached to that option once exercised, the coordinate bench ruled against the employee concerning the claim to the benefits of the GPF scheme. it is noted, that in the present case, no such admission exists. Therefore, we have no hesitation in recording that the fiction in law created by Clause 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 forcibly and on its own, made the petitioner’s case fall under the GPF scheme, forever.

It is contended by the court in command that The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

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 the 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

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click here to view the judgement

26 Oct

Due to their “contemptuous” behaviour in the acting Chief Justice’s chamber, two people were placed under arrest. The Orissa High Court.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #murder, Prime Legal

Title: Pravat Kumar Padhi & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Decided on: October 19, 2023

Writ C No. – 21030 of 2023

CORAM: Acting Chief. Justice Dr. B.R. Saarangi Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, the Orissa High Court is debating the validity of establishing a court in Konark. Numerous legal challenges, disputes over land allocation, and disrespectful conduct in the courtroom have all occurred there, resulting in the arrest of two people.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The conflict in this case relates to the construction of a court in Konark, Odisha. The petitioners have filed several legal challenges, there have been delays in the distribution of land, and two people have been arrested for acting disrespectfully in court. The petitioners and the court have taken numerous actions and issued numerous orders throughout the case’s complicated history.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The earlier court orders were ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners and another person also disrupted and behaved disrespectfully during the court proceedings, which resulted in their arrest for contempt of court. The writ petition was dismissed by the court after it determined there was nothing further to decide.

Written by- Kusuma R

Orissa Hc

1 2 3 4 5 6

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Sudden fight not murder under Section 302 IPC – Bombay HC

Grave and Sudden provocation doctrine not universal ; Bombay HC

The Kerala High Court overturns the conviction of a UP couple for murder after they disposed of an infant’s body in the sea, believing it to be dead.

Sustained subtractions made under the foregoing scheme regarding the rights of an employee to claim the automatic benefit of the new pension scheme – The High Court of Allahabad

Due to their “contemptuous” behaviour in the acting Chief Justice’s chamber, two people were placed under arrest. The Orissa High Court.