visual ihsan dari: ibnufathani.blogspot.com Mahkamah agung milik Yang Maha Esa ialah di Mahsyar...
lawyer: diri sendiri....
saksi: diri sendiri (anggota terlibat jenayah maksiat)
jatuh hukum: berdasarkan pengakuan sendiri
pelaksana hukuman: diri sendiri.
rayuan: not-available kalo tak merayu dari skrg n bertaubat
ratio decidendi: Awwal kalimah kat atas itu...diperbenarkan, diperlafazkan n diperamalkan dan banyak exceptions available di Mahsyar...n jgnlah ia diperlanggar, dipertentang, diputarbelitkan, ditakperlembagakan...dan banyak charges diperuntukkan (mahkamah itu takkan bertangguh)...fikir-fikirkan
(belajar dalam INGAT) (bukan study smart / hard) (you write you remember)
dan terus kepada tajuknya...
..........................................................................................................................
Section 300 Penal code: Murder; mens rea determined; exceptions draw direction to culpable or grievous hurts...need full copy of digital Act 574 PC...send request to myemail to download link. or you already have it on your pc...great...but do make a comment on this article (originally Morgan's)
In case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused ; S.D Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC).
Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel – Held. Accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasikal Becharbhi v. State of Gurjarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150.
(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused , placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control
(2)In India, words and gestures may also , under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception, to Section 300.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and suddenprovocation for committing the offence. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 3 Crimes 146 (Med).
Mere sudden quarrel woud not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Med).
To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely
(i) it was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner… The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence mast have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have been acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner . Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the , moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Madhya pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhys Prasesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
Where the extra judicial condession made by accused admitting the crime of throwing his three minor children also recovered form well, therefore accused liable for offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC; Narayana Swamyt v. Stateof Karnataka ,2000 Cr LJ 262 (Karn).
Where evidence of both eye witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained ; Rabba Ramanna Dora v. State of Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
Where the eye with nesses were close relations of accused and were natural with ness and their consistant evidence regarding assault by accused with knife to deceased , bother of accused which caused his death, corroborated by other with ness of incident,
therefore guilt of accused proved beyond reasonable doubt; Suaukar Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other with ness who apprehend the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore , charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat).
Plea of alibi in murder case, when most of the evidences prove presence of accused on spot of murder, can not be relied upon. It is on accused to prove that he was not present that too by reliable evidence only; Singha Magan Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cri LJ 2111 (Guj).
Pelting stones resulted into rob-fracture. Rupture of pleura is sufficient to cause death. External injury noted by doctors- appellants cannot put under clause 3rd or section 300. Guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1998 SCC (Cr) 1549.
Chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature: Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.
Wrist watch was santched by accused of deceased . On request called to meet on specified spot. Hot words were exchange knife blow was given on chest to deceased also to the person who came to rescue him. It cannot be said fatal injuries were without predestination exception cannot be applied ; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1999 AIR (SC) 338:
Where the evidence of eye with ness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was truthful , reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence and common intention of accused parsons to Commit murder of deceased also proved therefore conviction under section 300/34 us proper ; Ratan Devnath v. State of Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237 (Gau).
Where the co accused also shard common intention of committing murder of deceased by exhorting accused to commit crime, then offence punishable under section 302r/ w section 34 IPC was also proved against him; Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 63 (All).
Where evidence of eye withness neither woholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then it can not be inferred that both accused were individually or collectively were respondible for causing death of deceased while injury was grievous in nature , there conviction under section 302 althred to one under section 326 IPC; Shaik Subhani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 321 (AP).
Where no prejudice caused to accuded due to alteration of charge from under sections 302,392 I.P.C to section 396, Therefore trial not vitiated; K.M.Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn).
Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel – Held. Accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasikal Becharbhi v. State of Gurjarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150.
(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused , placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control
(2)In India, words and gestures may also , under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception, to Section 300.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and suddenprovocation for committing the offence. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 3 Crimes 146 (Med).
Mere sudden quarrel woud not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Med).
To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely
(i) it was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner… The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence mast have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have been acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner . Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the , moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Madhya pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhys Prasesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).
Where the extra judicial condession made by accused admitting the crime of throwing his three minor children also recovered form well, therefore accused liable for offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC; Narayana Swamyt v. Stateof Karnataka ,2000 Cr LJ 262 (Karn).
Where evidence of both eye witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained ; Rabba Ramanna Dora v. State of Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
Where the eye with nesses were close relations of accused and were natural with ness and their consistant evidence regarding assault by accused with knife to deceased , bother of accused which caused his death, corroborated by other with ness of incident,
therefore guilt of accused proved beyond reasonable doubt; Suaukar Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).
Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other with ness who apprehend the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore , charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat).
Plea of alibi in murder case, when most of the evidences prove presence of accused on spot of murder, can not be relied upon. It is on accused to prove that he was not present that too by reliable evidence only; Singha Magan Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cri LJ 2111 (Guj).
Pelting stones resulted into rob-fracture. Rupture of pleura is sufficient to cause death. External injury noted by doctors- appellants cannot put under clause 3rd or section 300. Guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1998 SCC (Cr) 1549.
Chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature: Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.
Wrist watch was santched by accused of deceased . On request called to meet on specified spot. Hot words were exchange knife blow was given on chest to deceased also to the person who came to rescue him. It cannot be said fatal injuries were without predestination exception cannot be applied ; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1999 AIR (SC) 338:
Where the evidence of eye with ness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was truthful , reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence and common intention of accused parsons to Commit murder of deceased also proved therefore conviction under section 300/34 us proper ; Ratan Devnath v. State of Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237 (Gau).
Where the co accused also shard common intention of committing murder of deceased by exhorting accused to commit crime, then offence punishable under section 302r/ w section 34 IPC was also proved against him; Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 63 (All).
Where evidence of eye withness neither woholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then it can not be inferred that both accused were individually or collectively were respondible for causing death of deceased while injury was grievous in nature , there conviction under section 302 althred to one under section 326 IPC; Shaik Subhani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 321 (AP).
Where no prejudice caused to accuded due to alteration of charge from under sections 302,392 I.P.C to section 396, Therefore trial not vitiated; K.M.Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn).
0 komen:
Post a Comment
ANY COMMENT OR IDEA ARE WELCOMED...ISLAM IS FOR ALL...