Case Title: SRI DILIP versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and others
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 2024
Decided on: 16th May , 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Facts of the case
Sri Dilip @ Dilipkumar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 809 of 2024 at the Karnataka High Court, is involved in this case. The event involves a fight in which Dilip fatally injured the victim with a knife. Bail is not recommended because the prosecution’s case against Dilip is supported by eyewitnesses and evidence. The defense contends that there was no intent to commit murder in the incident and offers a lesser charge; nevertheless, these kinds of findings need to be made at trial, therefore the bail request is denied.
Issues
What specifically did the appellant do that caused the victim to pass away?
Legal Provisions
The appellant’s deadly injury that resulted in the victim’s death, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is invoked in relation to the legal provisions at issue. The victim belonged to a caste that was oppressed, hence Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was also invoked, which further complicated the case’s legal elements.
Appellant Contentions
The appellant argues that the conduct that resulted in the victim’s death might not have violated Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but rather Section 304 Part-II, but a trial is necessary to make this conclusion. Furthermore, the appellant’s argument that he had no intention of killing anyone cannot be accepted at this point because it also requires a trial, which means bail would be denied.
Respondent Contentions
The respondent argues that there is no justification for granting bail because of the specific overt act allegation against the appellant. The proof provided by witnesses and Bail is adverse because the prosecution’s case Is strengthened by the knife being recovered at the appellant’s request.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The criminal appeal was denied by the court, which held that the evidence against the appellant required a trial to determine the proper charges and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to bail. It is not yet possible to decide whether the appellant’s acts constitute Section 302 of the IPC or Section 304 Part-II. In a similar vein, the assertion that he did not intend to commit murder necessitates a trial and results in the refusal of bail .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
