{"id":1201,"date":"2023-12-14T19:15:17","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T13:45:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1201"},"modified":"2023-12-14T19:15:34","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T13:45:34","slug":"supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-against-murder-convict-stating-that-no-iota-of-evidence-to-establish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-against-murder-convict-stating-that-no-iota-of-evidence-to-establish\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court dismisses appeal against murder convict stating that no iota of evidence to establish that due to intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so dangerous so as to cause death of any person"},"content":{"rendered":"

NANHE\u00a0 \u00a0(<\/strong>APPELLANT)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF U.P.\u00a0 (<\/strong>RESPONDENT)<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ., delivered by PANKAJ MITHAL, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The trial court vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 held the accused Nanhe to be guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000\/- and in the event of default in payment of fine to undergo additional one year of imprisonment. The trial court also held the accused to be guilty for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and imposed punishment of two years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000\/-. The judgment and order of conviction and sentencing the accused was affirmed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 passed in criminal appeal No.4474 of 2010. It may be worth noting that a single appeal was filed by the accused against his conviction in both the cases. The aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court has been assailed by the accused\/convict by means of the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the appellant is guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased. His death was accidental. His intention could have been only to kill Mahendra and not the deceased Saddam Hussain. The appellant at the relevant time was heavily intoxicated and as such was not in a position to even know what he was doing. The case would therefore, fall under Part II of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, \u201cIt may be true that the deceased may have been killed accidently by the appellant in the state of intoxication but there is no iota of evidence to establish that due to intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so dangerous so as to cause death of any person. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the appellant that he was administered intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, the provision of Section 86 IPC would not be applicable and he would not be entitled to reduction of sentence from 302 IPC to one falling under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. 26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in confirming the conviction and punishing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NANHE\u00a0 \u00a0(APPELLANT)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF U.P.\u00a0 (RESPONDENT) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023 (2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and PANKAJ MITHAL JJ., delivered by PANKAJ MITHAL, J.) Facts: The trial court vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 held the accused Nanhe to be guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1204,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1201"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1201\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1205,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1201\/revisions\/1205"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}