Case Comment on RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA VS. GHASI
AUTHOR: ABHIJEET KASHYAP, STUDENT, NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL, INDIA
The present case even though contains a judgement delivered around 6 years back, has not lost its relevance in contemporary criminal trials and is looked into at a time when seasoned criminals are walking away scot-free with a mere punishment for causing grievous hurt when in reality a death has been caused. In the said judgement the hon’ble justices gave a critical view of provisions of Indian penal code dealing with murder and grievous hurt i.e. section 302 and section 325 respectively. By delivering this judgement the hon’ble court was able to satisfy both the jurisprudential and social debate revolving around the convictions for voluntary causing grievous hurt in cases involving death of a person. Before this case, judgements across the country lacked uniformity when it came to conviction for culpable homicide amounting to murder. But this judgement set a precedent on which courts could rely while deciding the guilt. The Supreme court in this case laid down a five-pronged test to decide conviction for homicide. This comment deals with the historical background on the subject i.e. the approaches took by various courts while deciding on the subject wherein the courts heavily relied on the intention part of homicide rather than the ultimate fact that a death has been caused. Further, the author has made an attempt to critically analyze the judgements where courts have overlooked the fact of homicide while convicting the accused of causing grievous hurt. Lastly, the comment also deals with the shortcomings in the judgement that left the issue unresolved showing how the Hon’ble Supreme Court shied away from its duty to bring absolute clarity in the position of law.
Keywords: IPC, Grievous Hurt, Sec 302, Homicide.
Download Full Paper