Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 Part II – Distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: There is a subtle distinction of degree of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes – Intention is pivotal to decide whether the accused has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Along with intention, knowledge and the degree of crime, i.e. how the deceased was killed, plays an important role in deciding – In the present case, the accused-appellant had no intention to kill his uncle – Lack of intention can easily be seen through the acts committed by the appellant – He was furious about getting yelled by his uncle a day before, which acted as a provocation for the accused – The appellant was armed with a wooden leg of the cot in his hand which cannot be termed as a dangerous weapon – He had given a single blow to the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had intention of killing the deceased who was his own uncle – Maybe he wanted to punish his uncle for the reprimand, he received the previous day – Further it cannot be said that the appellant had the knowledge that the deceased would die through a single blow – Thus, the deceased is not liable to be convicted u/s.302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under s.304 Part-II IPC.
Mohd. Rafiq v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 10 SCC 706 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.