The accused questioned and threatened him about the collection of contribution from their territory and warned him that they would take away his life. Hopefully i must find a good tutor. On a complaint, Crime No. Bail is conceded during the pendency of the trial of an appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29. I cannot tell my name. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if an accident occurs, it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even such death ensures that he might not be convicted of the offence and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court.
The High Court accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire around the neck of P. Proving a person guilty is a huge challenge in front of police. However very interestingly the nature of the injury is not always used to ascertain the intention, that is, a very serious injury need not be caused to prove attempt to murder, even if a simple injury is done with the intention, it will be enough to convict the person under section 307. It is sufficient if there is present an intention to commit homicide coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. A contusion of 3 cm x size present lateral to the left eye with overlying abrasion of ¼ cm size red in colour.
Under Section 307, the offence is complete although the harmful consequence of death does not ensue, indeed even if no harm ensues. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were as under :- Except charge no. Punishment : According to Para 1 — Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. The doctrine of proportionality has to be invoked in the context of the facts in which the crime had been committed, the antecedents of the accused, the age of the accused and such other relevant factors. In a non- bailable offence, the accused does not have a right to be released on bail. He was unable to show that there was any other reason of the accident rather than his negligence. The accused was armed with sword and had inflicted blows on the forehead, ear, back side of the head as well as on the left arm of the complainant.
First the intention of knowledge to commit murder. The only difference between the two offences is the death of the victim which is not present under section 307. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. The prosecution case is that the victim P. Attempts by life convicts under section 307 The second part of section 307, prescribes death sentence to a life convict for attempt to bodily injury capable of causing death and in that process causing hurt to such person. Further, guidelines are laid down for the Courts to deal with such matters when application for quashing of proceedings is filed, after the parties have settled the issues between themselves.
The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, Sixteenth Edition, 2005, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, p. Here it is unequivocally stated by Bombay High Court in a case that the act must be clearly of such a nature that if it was uninterrupted and not interrupted then the victim would have died, if the act complained is not of this nature, then section 307 will not apply. . While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the most important consideration should be deterrence. Another connotation regarding the applicability of this section is that if the driver of a motor vehicle does not blow the horn because of the prevailing traffic rules prohibit him in doing so, it can neither be said that he failed to exercise reasonable and proper care nor that the duty to blow horn was imperative upon him, so as to hold him guilty of negligence under this section. The concerned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case.
When any of the two elements, namely, intention or knowledge, is present this section has no application. Negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something, which a reasonable guided, by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do. The intention and the knowledge of the result of the attempt to murder by the accused is also needed to be proved for conviction under the section. A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on his right cheek with an iron rod. The Court may release the person and may impose conditions on him. A has committed the offence defined in this section. So, use this section in future, if needed.
The second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment for life if hurt is caused thereby. Lastly, when an act as laid down under the section is done by a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life, the person may, if hurt is caused by the act, be punished with death. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr. The original Indian Penal Code, 1860 had no provision providing punishment for causing death by negligence. The tank collapsed because the material used in the construction was of low quality. If an offence is compoundable, a compromise can be done between the accused and the victim, and a trial can be avoided.
He thus, pleaded that this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid exercise of discretion by the High Court. If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is punishable with imprisonment for life. The man is obsessive and we are very scared to have him moving free. This clause limits itself to rash and negligent acts which cause death, but falls short of culpable homicide of either description. As per evidence though it was rainy season but there was no rain at the relevant point of time, thus the accused was held guilty under this section. Rajiv Roy, son of late Gulshan Roy, a Film Producer Director and Distributor by profession received a telephone call from Dubai and the caller gave him a telephone number of Dubai and asked him to contact Abu Salem.
Only the act done negligently or rashly invokes the validity of this section and it cannot be applicable to result, which supervenes upon the act which could not have been anticipated. We find in this case, such a situation does not arise. A is liable to punishment under this section. To support this prayer, an affidavit by the complainant was submitted before the High Court which stated that the complainant had no objection to dropping of charges against the Accused. A would be guilty of murder. From the material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons was reported to be a hardcore criminal having criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court in Aman Kumar v.