Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

"Conviction Altered from Section 302 to 304 Part II IPC: Supreme Court Rules 'Single Assault Without Premeditation Not Sufficient to Infer Intention to Kill'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court observed that a "single assault by the appellant coupled with the duration of the entire period having occurred for about 2-3 minutes would not be sufficient to infer that he had the intention to kill the deceased."

The appellant, N. Ramkumar, had appealed against the judgment of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Sections 450 & 302 IPC. The case revolved around a love affair gone awry, leading to the death of the deceased, Sangeetha.

Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, before arriving at its decision. "The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died due to a head injury," the judgment read. The Court also considered the testimonies of the deceased's mother and a neighbor, who had witnessed the events leading to the tragic incident.

In its legal analysis, the Court cited previous judgments, including the case of Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to emphasize that a single assault without premeditation could lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court also referred to a recent judgment in the case of Anbazhagan vs. The State to elaborate on the legal principles for determining the intention or knowledge of the accused.

Supreme Court concluded that "the appellant's act was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment." It further noted that the appellant and the deceased were in love, and the altercation was due to a change in their relationship. "Had there been any intention to do away with the life of the deceased, obviously the appellant would have come prepared and would have assaulted the deceased with pre-meditation," the judgment stated.

Apex Court altered the conviction to one under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone. He will be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

 Date of Decision: September 06, 2023                                                 

RAMKUMAR vs THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/06-Sep-2023-N.Ramkumar_Vs_State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News