Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction in Landmark Judgment: "Lack of Immediate Intention to Cause Death" Leads to Reduced Sentence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on February 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court altered a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, in the case of Ashu Khila vs. State of Orissa. The Division Bench, comprising Justices D. Dash and G. Satapathy, made this landmark decision in Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2011.

The appellant, Ashu Khila, was originally convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of his wife, following an incident where he set her on fire leading to her death after two months. However, the High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence and circumstances, observed a crucial point in their judgment, stating, "The aforesaid circumstances may rule out the immediate intention of the convict to cause death of the deceased."

This observation played a pivotal role in the court's decision to modify the conviction. The court considered the fact that the appellant had admitted the victim to the hospital after the incident and the victim's subsequent discharge on request. These factors, combined with the medical evidence suggesting that the injuries were initially classified as simple in nature, influenced the court's decision.

Highlighting the complexity of the case, the court noted, "The act of the convict can be attributed to his intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the deceased." Consequently, the bench ruled that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I of IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As a result of this alteration in the conviction, the High Court sentenced the appellant to ten years of Rigorous Imprisonment, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances surrounding the case. This judgment represents a nuanced understanding of the intent behind criminal acts, marking a significant moment in the legal landscape of criminal justice in India.

Date of Decision:  29-02-2024

ASHU KHILA VS STATE OF ORISSA

Latest Legal News