Murder and the law: India
(→Love, Honour and Land) |
|||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
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.” | ||
| − | |||
| − | [ | + | =Provocation, grave and sudden= |
| + | ==Not a “cruel act“ of murder== | ||
| + | [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=CUT-IN-LIFE-TERM-Death-due-to-provocation-12042017015044 CUT IN LIFE TERM - Death due to provocation not `cruel act' of murder: SC, April 12, 2017: The Times of India] | ||
| − | + | Death due to “grave and sudden provocation“ could not be termed as a “cruel act“ of murder, the Supreme Court has said while reducing the life term of a man to 10-year-jail term in a homicidal case. | |
| − | + | A bench comprising justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal granted the relief to Punjab resident Surain Singh who had filed an appeal against a 2008 judgment of high court of Punjab & Haryana which had confirmed a 1998 trial court verdict awarding life imprisonment to him. | |
| + | |||
| + | “It cannot be said that the accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed the act in question. The incident took place out of grave and sudden provocation and hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 300 (murder) exception 4 (sudden fight) of the Indian Penal Code.“ | ||
Revision as of 13:31, 13 May 2017
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.”
Provocation, grave and sudden
Not a “cruel act“ of murder
Death due to “grave and sudden provocation“ could not be termed as a “cruel act“ of murder, the Supreme Court has said while reducing the life term of a man to 10-year-jail term in a homicidal case.
A bench comprising justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal granted the relief to Punjab resident Surain Singh who had filed an appeal against a 2008 judgment of high court of Punjab & Haryana which had confirmed a 1998 trial court verdict awarding life imprisonment to him.
“It cannot be said that the accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed the act in question. The incident took place out of grave and sudden provocation and hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of section 300 (murder) exception 4 (sudden fight) of the Indian Penal Code.“
