Daughter of a Father : A Lesson in Criminal Law

 Daughter of a Father : A Lesson in Criminal Law

The facts are shocking. The discussion is on Ram Singh v Sonia [2007] GCtR 3205 (SC). 

It is useful for those interested in criminal law. Here a daughter killed her own father. Sonia was daughter of Relu Ram. 

The case of the prosecution was that on 23.8.2001 when Jeet Singh one of the employees of deceased - Relu Ram, and Sanjiv were sitting at the Saw Mill located by the side of Farm House of Relu Ram, a telephone call was received by Sanjiv (A2) from Sonia (A1) conveying her desire to celebrate Priyanka’s [deceased sister of Sonia] birthday at the Kothi at Litani Mor [place of occurrence] and that she would bring her from the hostel of Jindal School at Hisar the school she was studying in. At about 9.30 p.m. Sonia along with Priyanka reached home in a jeep. Thereafter, between 12 p.m., on hearing some noise of footsteps, PW 57, who was present at the Farm House, woke up and noticed that light in the room, where the spare parts of tractors etc. were kept, was on and upon inquiry found that Sonia was there in the room and he saw her taking a rod to the first floor which rod is used for raising/tilting the tractor from the ground.

Suicide Note

So far as Sonia was concerned, the prosecution case principally rests on (1) the Suicide Note alleged to have been written by her wherein she admitted having murdered eight persons, including three tiny tots, who were none other than her own immediate family members, (2) the judicial confession made by her to the Magistrate in the hospital where she was removed by the Police immediately after the occurrence and (3) bloodstained clothes of Sonia, blood group of which tallied with the blood group of deceased Sunil and Lokesh.

Polygraph Test

So far as Sanjiv is concerned, the case of the prosecution revolves around circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions made by him to Sunder Singh, and Rajni Gandhi, Scientific Assistant, the result of the polygraph test to which he was put by the prosecution and the recoveries made at his instance by the police. 

S.302 and S.304, IPC : Supreme Court Explains A Crucial Legal Aspect

S.302 and S.304, IPC : Supreme Court Explains A Crucial Legal Aspect 

An important Judgment has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25 August 2009 which dealt with S.302 and S.304 of IPC.

In Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (15) SCC 635, while discussing the question as to whether the offence therein fell under S.302 of IPC or S.304, IPC, has identified four ingredients which need to be fulfilled for invoking the said exception which are that death should be caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed.

In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part II IPC. 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

 https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 25 August 2009.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.  

"Murder" and "Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder" : Supreme Court Explains the Difference

 "Murder" and "Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder" : Supreme Court Explains the Difference

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24 July 2012.

In context of S.300, S.302, S.304 of IPC, it has been commented in Rampal Singh v State of Punjab [2012] GCtR 3076 (SC) that "Section 300 states both, what is murder and what is not. First finds place in Section 300 in its four stated categories, while the second finds detailed mention in the stated five exceptions to Section 300. The legislature in its wisdom, thus, covered the entire gamut of culpable homicide that ‘amounting to murder’ as well as that ‘not amounting to murder’ in a composite manner in Section 300 of the Code. Sections 302 and 304 of the Code are primarily the punitive provisions. They declare what punishment a person would be liable to be awarded, if he commits either of the offences. An analysis of these two Sections must be done having regard to what is common to the offences and what is special to each one of them. The offence of culpable homicide is thus an offence which may or may not be murder. If it is murder, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder, for which punishment is prescribed in Section 302 of the Code." 

"Where the act is done on grave and sudden provocation which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender himself, the offence would fall under the exceptions to Section 300 of the Code and is punishable under Section 304 of the Code."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

 https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 24 July 2012.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.  

Fight and Criminal Law : A View of Supreme Court

Fight and Criminal Law : A View of Supreme Court

An important Judgment has been passed on 17 February 2003 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It has been held at page 3 of Ghapoo Yadav v State of MP [2003] GCtR 2743 (SC) thus : - 

"To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation." 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 17 February 2003.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.