Tularam v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advertisements

FACTS-

1. Around 6 o’clock on June 9, 2002, Ramnath and Raju got into a fight in Ramnath’s flour mill. The two started fighting once more, and Bipatlal Lodhi joined them in the middle of it. When the argument turned physical, Tularam, Raju’s uncle, stepped in and arrived with a ballam (a stick made of wood or bamboo with a spear affixed at the end). Sakharam, another individual who was also accused but was not brought before us, entered the battle while brandishing a lathi.
2. As the argument descended into violence, Tularam struck Bhadri Lodhi on the left side of his chest with the ballam, causing him to fall to the ground. After that, Bhadri Lodhi was transported home, where he was pronounced dead.
3. Tularam was found guilty of a crime punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing Bhadri Lodhi based on these general facts, which are without question.
4. We have reviewed the Trial Court’s and the High Court’s records, and the only narrow question that remains is whether Tularam intended to kill Bhadri Lodhi.

ISSUE-

1. Whether the accused is liable u/s 300, 302, 304 of IPC?

JUDGEMENT-

According to the facts of this case, Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC meets all of its requirements. Both courts agree that the battle was spontaneous and unplanned, and Tularam is not found to have abused the fact that Ramnath was carrying a ballam by inflicting any additional major injuries other than a bruise on him. Given that, it cannot be argued that Tularam intended to kill Bhadri Lodhi or do him severe bodily harm. 

The fact that Tularam pierced Bhadri Lodhi’s chest during the confrontation is undeniably true, but it is unclear if his goal was to murder the man.

We are certain that the elements of murder as defined in Section 300 of the IPC are absent in this instance based on the facts on file. To harm Bhadri Lodhi physically was Tularam’s goal, and piercing Bhadri Lodhi’s chest with a spear was one such damage that may result in the man’s demise. Tularam must be given credit for this information.

In light of the facts, Tularam’s conviction for an offence covered by Section 302 of the IPC is overturned; nonetheless, he is still found guilty of an offence covered by Section 304’s second portion. The appellant has spent nearly 14 years incarcerated. His sentence is altered to the period of incarceration he has already undergone. 

REFERENCES-

1. Indiankanoon.com
2. Casemine.com

This case analysis is written by Anshula Grover, intern at Legal Vidhiya and a student at Shoolini University.

Admin