Murder and the law: India
(→Murder committed in inebriated condition) |
(→Murder committed in inebriated condition) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Allowing the appeal partly and modifying the sentence, the bench said “a custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years would meet the ends of justice.” | Allowing the appeal partly and modifying the sentence, the bench said “a custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years would meet the ends of justice.” | ||
| − | + | =Love, Honour and Land= | |
[[File: Murder14.jpg|Zan, zar, zameen (women, gold, land)? |frame|500px]] | [[File: Murder14.jpg|Zan, zar, zameen (women, gold, land)? |frame|500px]] | ||
Revision as of 05:52, 27 November 2014
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Murder committed in inebriated condition
From the archives of The Times of India 2010
Drunk husband kills wife, SC says he wasn’t in his senses
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: A drunk man objects to his wife being in an inebriated condition, picks up a fight and assaults her with an axe leading to her death. The trial court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
But, the Supreme Court felt that since the fight took place in an inebriated condition, probably both husband and wife had no control over their acts and the husband while striking her with the handle of an axe did not realise that it would cause death.
With doubts created by the version given by the couple's daughter, who was an eyewitness to the incident, a Bench comprising Justices D K Jain and Deepak Verma felt that the offence could be categorized under Section 304-I, which meant the act was likely to cause death but the perpetrator did not have the knowledge that his action would actually result in death.
The husband, Pundalik, and wife, Rukhmabai, used to quarrel frequently. On June 2, 2002, both visited Yaolkhed in Akola district of Maharashtra and came home drunk. On reaching home, Pundalik questioned his wife as to why she got drunk, which led to a verbal duel between them. He got angry and assaulted the wife with an axe in front of their two daughters. Rukhmabai succumbed to injuries.
Hearing the appeal against the decision of the HC, the apex court noticed that one of the daughters, who was examined as an eyewitness, did not support the case of the prosecution. It also found that the trial court held him guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The SC also saw the evidence of the doctor who conducted the postmortem. The doctor gave an opinion that the injury which proved fatal was possibly caused by the handle of the axe and not by the sharp metallic side and that the other injuries were not sufficient to cause death.
After perusing the evidence, the bench said: “taking into account all factors and in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-I of the IPC and not the offence punishable under Section 302.”
Allowing the appeal partly and modifying the sentence, the bench said “a custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years would meet the ends of justice.”
Love, Honour and Land
The Times of India Nov 17 2014
Personal vendetta, love affairs and property disputes are the leading causes of murders in India. In 2013, the country witnessed more than 30,000 cases of murder and over 3,000 of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (CH).Investigating agencies identified 12 main motives for these crimes, between them accounting for 35% of all murders and CH. It is surprising to note that even in the 21st century, witchcraft is the reason for over a hundred deaths while communal and caste-related clashes have killed another hundred people
