Purnia Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1974|
|Judge|| Syed M. Fazal Ali and; A.D. Koshal, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1979SC1454; 48(1979)CLT533(SC); (1979)3SCC393; 1979(11)LC426(SC)|
|Respondent||State of Orissa|
.....cl. (d) of sub-s. (1) of s. 8 of the aforesaid act, the respondents was entitled to a share. the trial court decreed the suit and the high court upheld the decree. the appellant came to this court by certifi- cate. it was contended on behalf of the appellant that cl. (d) pre-supposed a partition between the penultimate and the sole-surviving coparceners and that therefore all the femalies in cl. (a), (b) and (c) could not be said to be entitled to a share. held:per bachawat and bhargava, jj.-when determining the scope of the right under cl. (d) there is no need to envisage an assumed partition and there is no justification for holding that cl. (d) must be interpreted on the basis of an assumed partition between the sole surviving member of the family and the co-oparcener who..........under section 302 ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life. the appellant was acquitted by the trial court but on appeal preferred by the state to the high court, the order of acquittal by the trial court was reversed and converted into conviction as stated above. the facts of the case have been fully detailed in the judgment of the courts below. 2. mr. puri appearing in support of the appeal has submitted that even on the findings of the trial court no case under section 302 ipc is made out on the proved facts. mr. mukherjee appearing for the respondent conceded that in the circumstances of the present case, the case squarely falls not under section 302 ipc but under section 304(1) and the high court was not justified in convicting the appellant under section 302 ipc. after having.....
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. In this appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crl. Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court but on appeal preferred by the State to the High Court, the order of acquittal by the Trial Court was reversed and converted into conviction as stated above. The facts of the case have been fully detailed in the judgment of the courts below.
2. Mr. Puri appearing in support of the appeal has submitted that even on the findings of the Trial Court no case under Section 302 IPC is made out on the proved facts. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Respondent conceded that in the circumstances of the present case, the case squarely falls not under Section 302 IPC but under Section 304(1) and the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. After having gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge, we also feel that the case does not fall under Section 302 IPC but it falls under Section 304(1) IPC. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed to this extent that the conviction of the appellant altered from that under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304(1) IPC and the sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to seven years' R.I.