|
|
|
|
|
| ATMARAM V/S STATE OF M.P. 2000(2) VI.BHA. 43 The accused had given only .single "lathi " blow. The cause of death is coma due to head injury. No evidence of previous enmity between the parties. It was also not clear from the evidence that there was any intention to kill the deceased and incidental took place at the spur of moment , therefore the conviction of accused was not proper under section 302 of IPC but he was liable under section 304 part 2 IPC
AMAR SINGH V / S STATE OF M.P. 1997 S.C.C. (CRI) 630 The accused giving a single blow with pharsa on the neck of the deceased which proved fatal, the deceased was armed with a gun but he neither fired the gun nor aimed the gun at the accused ,in the circumstances of the case it's clear that the accused exceeded the right of private defence The accused is liable to be convicted under section 304 pt. 2
BALAUR SINGH V / S STATE OF PUNJAB 1997 S. C. C. [CRI] 408 Freefight between rival groups resulting in death of one person the sole injury on deceased's head caused by the appellant he cannot be convicted for an offence under section 302 IPC,In a free fight there is movement of the body of the victim and the assailant and dimensions and suits of the injury cannot be said to be calculated or targeted by the assailant therefore he is liable under section 304 part 2 IPC only and not under section 302 of IPC
MAHESH V/S STATE OF M P 1997 S. C. C. (C. R.I) 181 = Absence of pre-meditation -- sudden fight after the deceased objected to the grazing of cattle. Appellant giving single blow with the pharsa on the head of the deceased. No other injury caused to the deceased or the witnesses who had also requested him not to graze cattle in the field indicating that the appellant did not act in any cruel or unusual manner. In the circumstances of the case exception 4 is attracted and the trial court rightly convicted him under section 304 part one.
NARAYAN V /S STATE OF M.P. 1992 J.L.J. 220 The quarrel between the deceased and the accused was not anticipated but taken place suddenly grappling was taking place between the two, it was most possible that accused could not have aimed at a particular part of the body ,he had no particular motive to kill the deceased, the chest injury no doubt was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, but in the above circumstances it cannot be held that he intended to cause the death, The offence committed was not under section 302, but of section 304 PART 2
No previous enmity between the parties, no conventional sharp weapon was used, only one blow of iron rod at the spur of moment inflicted, cause of incident also not known, intention to cause death cannot be inferred and the offence falls under section 304 pt. 2
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
