latest update

2019 SCeJ 87

7th January, 2019

Penal Code, 1860, S. 304B, 498A - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113B – Death by burning using kerosene oil within seven years of marriage  -  Demands for dowry and ill-treatment/cruelty on failure to meet the said demands evident from the evidence of father - Death was on account of burn injuries caused by use of kerosene proved -  All the three ingredients necessary to draw the presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304¬B IPC have been proved and established  - Consequently, presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused - In the absence of any defence evidence to rebut the same, the Court has to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304¬B IPC -  On same consideration, offence under Section 498¬A must also be held to be proved .

Subscribe for getting REPORTS in you email @Rs. 1000/- per annum. 

Indian Penal Code, Section 304 Part II - Deceased succumbed to the injury on the thigh leading to the cut of the femoral artery -  Considering that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, the assault was not made on a vital part of the body, that the assailant ran away upon being challenged, the genesis of the assault lay in a dispute between neighbours with regard to strayed cattle, and that the occurrence had taken place long ago in 1980, we are satisfied to reduce the sentence to a period of two years relying on Maqsood and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016(15) SCC 748. ....(2018)2 SCeJ 1372

JUDGEMENT SHOWN AS PART OF TRIAL PACK

IPC ,  Section 304 (Part I) - Gunshot was fired within the range of 6 to 8 feet, can not be said that accused was having intention to commit murder of the deceased and used fire arm for that purpose as  the injury could have been caused on upper limb, above waist of the deceased but the part chosen for causing injury was the back portion of left thigh - Accused was not having intention to commit murder - Deceased  suffered gunshot injury and entry wound was on back of his left thigh -  This shows that the shot was fired from his back side -  There was no blackening, charring on exit wound - Blackening and charring were present on entry wound which shows that the gunshot was fired within the range of 6 to 8 feet - Medical evidence that  he did not suffer even a single scratch on his body except fire arm injury  - In view of the medical evidence, it would be easy to infer that if accused was having intention to commit murder of the deceased and used fire arm for that purpose, the injury could have been caused on upper limb, above waist of the deceased but the part chosen for causing injury was the back portion of left thigh - Thus, though the accused No.1 was not having intention to commit murder of the deceased but the act was to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death -  He would be responsible for commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC. (2018-2) SUPREME COURT E@JOURNAL 1273

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 304 Part I - Act committed was with intention to cause death or of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death - That even when the act may not have been committed with the intention of causing death, the same was intended to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, within the meaning of Section 304 Part I. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 632

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 304 part II - We find that punishment of five years appears to be just and proper - It could have been even more because eventually the incident resulted in death of a person though the appellant did not intend to cause death of deceased - In the absence of any cross appeal by the State on the issue of quantum of sentence, we do not therefore consider it to be proper to go into the question of adequacy of sentence in this appeal filed by the accused. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 752

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 304-B - No fine can be imposed in case of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC - So the sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.   (182) P.L.R.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 304-B - Sentenced to imprisonment for life - That the father of the appellant had also died - His mother had died during the pendency of the trial - So there is no close family member to look after the children - Was allowed interim bail on account of the death of the husband - The co-accused had died during the pendency of the trial - This fact is not disputed that the appellant has no criminal background and even as per the police papers, he is not a previous convict - So the ends of justice will suffice even if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced - The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and the sentence of fine, imposed by the learned trial Court, is hereby set aside.   (182) P.L.R.

IPC S. 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC - Sentence  Quantum - Question of sentence is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. Law courts have been consistent in the approach that a reasonable proportion has to be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment - While it is true that sentence disproportionately severe should not be passed that does not clothe the court with an option to award the sentence manifestly inadequate - Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime - As far as the award of compensation is concerned, particularly in the case of homicidal death, monetary benefits cannot be equated with the life of a person and the societys cry for justice - Object is just to mitigate hardship that is caused to the deceased - Fine amount of Rs.25,000/- imposed on each of the accused is increased to Rs.1,25,000/- each. Held, Considering the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents two accused namely Raj and Narender were the students at the time of the incident while Manphool has crossed the age of 72 years. The occurrence was in the year 1993 and more than 22 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. For the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC reduction of sentence from seven years to the period already undergone, though, appears to be inadequate, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to the period already undergone by each of the accused. As far as the award of compensation is concerned, particularly in the case of homicidal death, monetary benefits cannot be equated with the life of a person and the societys cry for justice. Object is just to mitigate hardship that is caused to the deceased. Fine amount of Rs.25,000/- imposed on each of the accused is increased to Rs.1,25,000/- each. (2016)3 PLRSC 909

Indian Penal Code, Section 304 Part II - Deceased succumbed to the injury on the thigh leading to the cut of the femoral artery -  Considering that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, the assault was not made on a vital part of the body, that the assailant ran away upon being challenged, the genesis of the assault lay in a dispute between neighbours with regard to strayed cattle, and that the occurrence had taken place long ago in 1980, we are satisfied to reduce the sentence to a period of two years relying on Maqsood and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016(15) SCC 748

PLR Supreme Court e@journal