He was having long life to live and he must be the breadwinner of the family. Hence, we are of the opinion that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused and the scuffle took place due to sudden provocation on the part of the deceased. It was held that the accused could not be convicted under section 120-B on the mere ground that he was head of a section of he branch where the fraud was alleged to have been committed. The fatal injury caused to Periyasamy was by the use of thadi wooden log which was easily available on the spot. It does not apply to a case in which there has been the voluntary commission of an offence against the person. The cause of death as described by the doctor was hemorrhagic shock due to stab injury over the chest and abdomen involving liver and lung. The victim died after a week of septicaemia.
. Punishment imprisonment of life, it is ten years with fine. However, which part of the body, the assault would ultimately affect would depend upon various factors i. The wife told the accused about this programme even though she knew that the accused was waiting for the opportunity to kill her husband and taking the opportunity he killed him. The curative petitions are therefore dismissed. Recently he had beaten his coligue in police station nd was suspanded.
Pleura shows clean cut elliptical stab below injury no. Hence, it was a premeditated act to attack the deceased. Margins clean cut inverted, bevelling noticed at life margin of wound, dried blood stains seen over the skin in vicinity. The evidence clearly shows that on 4. One is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and second is fine. On the basis of the aforesaid rival legal contentions, evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record and the reasoning taken by the courts below, the following points would arise for consideration of this Court: 1.
If any person by way of libel i. Anushka had gone to the spot for calling her father. Defence has brought the same to our notice. The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes death, is the essence of Section 304-A. She got knowledge from daughter Anushka. The lower court convicted him of murder.
Out of this amount, Rs. It was contended that this evidence clearly supports the findings recorded by the Trial Court that Asaram died homicidal death on account of the injuries sustained by him by means of a sharp weapon like a knife. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a Court. Section 304-A specifically deals with the rash or negligent acts which cause death but fall short of culpable homicide of either description. The other accused person is liable to be convicted under section 324 as section 34 has not been applied after setting aside conviction under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code; Kedar Prasad v. This would make us believe that it is difficult to hold that there was any premeditation or pre-planning on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased which would in turn necessitate examining thoroughly the presence of intention or knowledge as contemplated by.
The word lawful guardian here mans any person lawfully interested with care or custody of such minor or other person. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Neither the defence has disputed about homicidal death nor there is any other contrary material. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury that resulted was most imminent; viii A private complaint may not be entertained against a doctor unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor; ix A doctor accused of rashness or negligence may not be arrested in a routine manner simply because a charge has been levelled against him , unless the arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence; x Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable per se by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur i. Here A at the time of first moving the rings, commits theft. It was brought to the notice of the appellant-accused.
The reputation must be lowered among the reasonable person including relation of a person. The right lung was also damaged. Moreover, no ground falling within the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. He further stated that from one barrel of the gun one empty cartridge was found and from the other barrel a live cartridge was found. He was rushed to the hospital and declared dead around 1. In order to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, it is essential to establish that death is the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused. The High Court was pleased to affirm the view taken by the Trial Court as just and proper and rejected the said contentions.
So, in case of a case based on direct evidence, there can be prosecution evidence on the point of motive or it may not be there. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully examining the ocular evidence on record, we would like to bring certain relevant facts into light that were deposed by the above mentioned witnesses in their testimony and cross examination, which the High Court and the Trial Court have failed to notice the same. The person who fired and the other instigators were caught by the villagers, who beat them. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. According to this witness, the appellant was instigated by Ram Sewak and Hanuman Prasad to fire. The reply of the accused persons and their family circumstances are considered carefully. Tyre marks were also found on the thighs of the deceased.
Type I, which is better known as Third Party Insurance Form A , is the one which is compulsory as per law. Much ado was made by the appellants about the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the appellants accused party and to contend that the real genesis of the crime was not forthcoming. Any reference to any advocate on this website does not constitute a referral or endorsement, nor does it constitute an advertisement. It is clear from the wording of the section that the right commences and continues as long as danger to body lasts. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 20. From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a pre-existing property dispute between the two families. He said that he does not know from whom he enquired nor their details were mentioned in the case diary.
Doctor carrying out postmortem was not examined, probably for the reason that the defence has admitted the report. He further stated that Ram Sewak and Mangal Singh, who were , had fired from their guns and ran away. There is every reason to uphold the opinion of the trial Court about homicidal death. Thereby, the deceased started assaulting the accused. I hv To wash my cloth by my own. In murder there is greater intention or knowledge than in culpable homicide not amounting to murder.