Order in murder case was due to ‘oversight’: sessions judge
22/10/2019, STAFF REPORTER, MADURAI
A sessions judge submitted a report to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday explaining that his order convicting the accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the IPC was due to oversight.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and N. Anand Venkatesh took cognisance of the explanation submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, and observed that after going through the sessions court judgement, it could be seen that the sessions judge did not intend to convict them under Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC.
The court said it was an inadvertent mistake and instead had the judge convicted the accused under Section 304 (1) (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), things would have fallen in place and added that to err was human.
The court adjourned the hearing till October 22 to decide if it could continue to hear the appeal filed by the accused.
Earlier, the court was taken aback by the order of the lower court that had awarded jail terms of 10 years and seven years for the accused after convicting them under Section 302.
The HC Bench had observed that Section 302 of the IPC specifically provided that whoever committed the offence of murder should be punished with death sentence or imprisonment for life and should also be liable to pay a fine. It had sought an explanation from the sessions judge.
22/10/2019, STAFF REPORTER, MADURAI
A sessions judge submitted a report to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday explaining that his order convicting the accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the IPC was due to oversight.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and N. Anand Venkatesh took cognisance of the explanation submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, and observed that after going through the sessions court judgement, it could be seen that the sessions judge did not intend to convict them under Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC.
The court said it was an inadvertent mistake and instead had the judge convicted the accused under Section 304 (1) (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), things would have fallen in place and added that to err was human.
The court adjourned the hearing till October 22 to decide if it could continue to hear the appeal filed by the accused.
Earlier, the court was taken aback by the order of the lower court that had awarded jail terms of 10 years and seven years for the accused after convicting them under Section 302.
The HC Bench had observed that Section 302 of the IPC specifically provided that whoever committed the offence of murder should be punished with death sentence or imprisonment for life and should also be liable to pay a fine. It had sought an explanation from the sessions judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment