Delve into a significant legal case where the court’s meticulous analysis led to the conviction under Section 304 IPC. The judgment not only provides clarity on the legal aspects but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, showcasing the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding the law.
Facts
- The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2000.
- The appellant’s condition deteriorated and he died on 21.3.2000 despite resuscitative measures.
- The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
- The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s view and dismissed the criminal appeal.
- The appellant has appealed before the current court challenging the High Court’s judgment and order.
- The victim suffered two injuries, one being a scalp deep wound with fresh bleeding on the posterior lateral side of the head above the right ear, with sharp-cut margins.
- The second injury was an incised wound on the left side of the abdomen, 4 cm away from the umbilicus, measuring 3 cm x 15 cm, reaching the abdominal cavity.
- Despite the injuries, the victim survived for over 11 days but his condition deteriorated after 15.03.2000.
- He was given medical attention and transferred to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, where he eventually passed away on 21.03.2000 due to septicemia.
- The Death Summary from the hospital highlighted the victim’s state of septicemia upon admission, with subsequent complications leading to multi-organ failure.
- One of the injuries proved to be fatal, leading to the appellant being charged under Section 304 of the IPC, not Section 302.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Analysis
- Considering the totality of the circumstances on record
- Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC
- Appropriate punishment recommended: rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- If the appellant has completed an actual sentence of more than 10 years, they must be released immediately unless needed for another offense.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Case Title: PAWAN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (2021 INSC 542)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001654-001654 / 2013
