Death Caused Due To Sudden Fight And In Heat Of Passion Upon A Frivolous Matter Without Any Intention Is Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom noticed that culpable murder shouldn’t be amounting to homicide whether it is dedicated with none premeditation, on a spur of second, in sudden combat and in warmth of ardour upon a frivolous issues and with out an offender’s having taken undue benefit or acted in a merciless, ghostly or uncommon method.
The Appellant was convicted for the homicide of his spouse by the trial courtroom and sentenced to bear Life imprisonment.
The Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Prem Narayan Singh noticed, “As per their statements, the incident had admittedly occurred rapidly and in a livid second. Brick has been pelted on head of deceased with full pressure in heated second. Thus, in committing so, the appellant was definitely having the data of dying, however not the intention. Subsequently, the offence dedicated by the appellant shall be beneath the purview of Part 304-II of IPC and never beneath Part 302 of IPC.”
Advocate Manohar Singh Chouhan represented the Appellant, whereas Advocate Shrey Raj Saxena represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
The Appellant was charged with Part 342 and 302 of IPC. It was the Prosecution’s case that the Appellant had murdered his spouse after having a combat along with her as she refused to pay him cash.
It was submitted that every one eye-witnesses turned hostile and didn’t assist the case of the Prosecution. Additional, the put up mortem report has solely proven that there’s a single damage brought on on the top of the deceased. It’s additional submitted that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it’s, the offence of the appellant wouldn’t journey greater than the offence beneath Part 304-II of the IPC whereas the discovered trial Courtroom has convicted the appellant wrongly beneath Part 302 of IPC.
Courtroom’s Evaluation
The query earlier than the Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom was whether or not the husband (appellant) has brought on damage by brick with intention or data to trigger her dying and the offence dedicated by the appellant shall be beneath the purview of Part 302 of IPC or part 304-II of IPC.
“Additionally it is revealed that the wedding between the appellant and deceased was solemnized means again and the age of complainant/Karan is 17 years on the time of incident. There are two sons and one daughter who’ve been produced as witnesses earlier than the Courtroom and none of them have said about predetermination or any such motive for this obnoxious act. Beneath these circumstances, the offence of committing culpable murder quantities to homicide towards the appellant can’t be envisaged”, the Courtroom mentioned.
The Bench opined that culpable murder shouldn’t be amounting to homicide whether it is dedicated with none premeditation, on a spur of second, in sudden combat and in warmth of ardour.
It was held that, “As far as the sentence is anxious, there isn’t any pre-conviction as not adverted by discovered public prosecutor, the incident had occurred in a heated spur of second, therefore, for the offence beneath part 304-II of IPC 07 years R.I and superb of Rs.5000/- could be enough.”
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was modified to the extent that he’s convicted beneath Part 304-II of IPC and sentenced for 07 years R.I. with superb of Rs.5000/.
Trigger Title: Kishan V. State of Madhya Pradesh (NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15411)
Look
Appellant: Advocate Manohar Singh Chouhan
Respondents: Advocates Shrey Raj Saxena, Dy. AG assisted by Shri H.S. Rathore, GA showing on behalf of Advocate Common.
