Bhupendra v.

State of Maharashtra

(2013) 5 AIR Bom R 1297

Medical evidence indicated that in addition to the injuries suffered due to fall, there
were other injuries, which could not be associated with the single fall Hence,
considering this medical evidence along with other circumstances, deceased proved
to have suffered culpable homicide

Medical evidence showed that injuries sustained by the deceased were possible
even by fist blows and her death was homicidal.

It was observed that the accidental death is ruled out and there was no circumstance to show
that there could be case of suicide and the evidence was showing that it was homicidal death

Held, if by fist blow contusion to heart was caused it may not have been necessarily after some
loud quarrel Hence, non-hearing of cries by the other passenger from the neighboring rooms
and their non-examination held to be not fatal particularly, when the incident occurred in cold
night at 4 a.m. i.e. a prime time of sleep Accused not only tried to hide what exactly
happened in the room that night, but they also not explained the death of the deceased who
was in the same room with them

In Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa where the person picks up a knife and stabs another in the
stomach merely following an exchange of heated words, it would be either regarded as a
provocative act which would fall appropriately under Exception 120or would be an act
out of some other motive where he would then be liable for murder.22

The second situation shows premeditation because no two sober people sitting together or
passing each other would ever start fighting in the absence of any sort ofmutual
exchange of words unless they had preplanned to do so. The same happened in Inacio Manuel
Miranda v. State of Goa where the accused had a previous dislike for the deceased whereupon
when they were drinking together the accused went andbrought a knife and killed the deceased.
No evidence whatsoever of sudden quarrel was found and so the accused was charged
under Section 302 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

In Hans Raj Singh v. Emperor wherein the Court accepted that though a mere quarrel or a wordy
warfare can also be regarded as a fight but the fact that the terms fight and quarrel are used
in the Exception side by side indicates that the intention of the legislature was that there should
be something more than a mere quarrel. So, the facts of a case must be capable of giving rise
with reasonable amount of definiteness to the conclusion that it was a case of sudden fight
upon a sudden quarrel.20 This line of argument, would now, be further buttressed in
light of the principles of statutory interpretation.

Obscenity is a legal term that applies to anything offensive to morals and is often equated with the term P
ORNOGRAPHY.Pornography, however, is a more limited term, which refers to the erotic content of books, m
agazines, films, and recordings.Obscenity includes pornography, but may also include nude dancing, sex
ually oriented commercial telephone messages,and scatological comedy routines