https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288449 On the proved facts, the Court treated the assault as a sudden and pugnacious reaction rather than murder, and altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. It noted that minor injuries on the appellant did not establish private defence. The same lesser conviction and sentence were extended to the co-accused on parity, because his role was no graver and Article 21 was invoked to avoid manifest injustice despite earlier dismissal of his proceedings. The sentence fixed for both was rigorous imprisonment for ten years. en-us Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:10:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288449 On the proved facts, the Court treated the assault as a sudden and pugnacious reaction rather than murder, and altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. It noted that minor injuries on the appellant did not establish private defence. The same lesser conviction and sentence were extended to the co-accused on parity, because his role was no graver and Article 21 was invoked to avoid manifest injustice despite earlier dismissal of his proceedings. The sentence fixed for both was rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288449