SUPREME COURT UPDATES

1. SUPREME COURT DISCUSSES WHETHER SECTION 302 IPC BE APPLIED IN A CASE OF SINGLE INJURY

Background: An Appeal was filed before the #SupremeCourt by the Appellant against the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 122 of 2016. The High Court dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2012, convicting the Appellant herein under Section 302 IPC.

Relief Sought: To convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Issue: Whether the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part II or Section 302 IPC.

Supreme Court Observation: That there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not are various factors based on which conviction is made. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the Accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the Deceased’s vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Held: The Appeal is allowed in part. The Impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court confirming the conviction of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby modified from that of under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. [Citation: Stalin v. State, 2020 SCC Online SC 723, decided on 09-09-2020]

2. GUJARAT HIGH COURT: ADVOCATE YATIN OZA’S UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY REJECTED

Brief: Grievances may exist but they can always be conveyed in a better language. Systems can be improved but imputations should not unnecessarily be made. In connection with, Mr Yatin Narendra Oza, who is also the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association, was stripped off from his Senior Advocate’s Designation. This has been done after Advocate Oza had levelled charges of corruption against the Registry of the Gujarat High Court. The Court cited Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules 2018, which states “In the event a Senior Advocate is found guilty of conduct which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior Advocate concerned to be worthy of the designation, the Full Court may review its decision to designate the person concerned and recall the same”. [Citation: Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2020 (SCC Online SC 724), order dated 09-09-2020.]

Lakshmi Vishwakarma

Associate

The Indian Lawyer