Bail in Murder Case
A Delhi court recently granted bail to Tajuddin, who was arrested in connection with the murder of Rinku Sharma in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area in 2021. Rinku Sharma, a 25-year-old hospital technician, was allegedly stabbed to death by a group of men on February 10, 2021.
Observing that Tajuddin had been in custody for about two years, and the witnesses had not been examined yet, as well as waiting for the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, additional sessions judge Neeraj Gaur on February 13 granted bail to Tajuddin with the condition that he shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness.
“The applicant has been in custody for about two years. As discussed, the trial will take its own time. The non-examination of public witnesses cannot be a sole ground to deny bail applications,” noted Delhi’s Rohini court.
Advocate Ravi Drall, representing the accused, highlighted that Tajuddin had been in custody since February 12, 2021, and his previous bail application was rejected in September 2022. Drall also pointed out that Tajuddin’s name was included in the supplementary statement but not in the initial complaint, emphasizing the demand for bail. This demand was opposed by the public prosecutor on the grounds of the serious nature of the offence.
After considering the submissions, the court emphasized the need to strike a balance between the accused person’s liberty and the rights of the victims. Consequently, Tajuddin was granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 35,000 and one surety of a similar amount. The court also directed Tajuddin to inform the court in case of any change in his residential address.
In conclusion, the successful grant of bail to Tajuddin highlights the importance of having the best criminal lawyer in Delhi to navigate complex legal proceedings effectively.
In the world, the most common and heinous crime is the murder of an individual by another. This is the worst thing a human can do to another human. And to ensure that this kind of action should not be spared in society and should be dealt with serious consequences. There is a legal provision given under section 302 IPC. Section 302 IPC talks about the punishment given to a person who commits the offence of murder. The cases related to crime and punishment are to be dealt with through legal consultation.
Rinku Sharma, a 25-year-old BJP’s Yuva Morcha worker and member of Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) was stabbed to death by his neighbours in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area, triggering a political slugfest among parties over a suspected communal angle behind the murder.
According to police, Rinku had gone to attend his friend Babu’s birthday party. The party was also attended by Aakash, Sachin, Zahid and Golu, who were friends with the victim. India Today TV spoke to Babu, Akash and Sachin about the events of the night that led to the killing of Rinku Sharma.
Babu says, “My birthday was on February 9 and I threw a party for my friends on the 10th. Rinku, Sachin, Akash, Sandeep, Golu and Zahid attended this party. Suraj said that he would bring Chingu (Zahid) along.”
What are the essentials of murder as per Section 300 and Section 302 IPC?
In Section 302 IPC, there is not any specific mention of any of the three punishments with the direction to the crime of murder. It means the section is silent on when the above-mentioned punishments will be given to an individual committing murder.
The three main essentials, as per section 302 IPC, are
- The act of murder done by an individual should be to kill all to cause death.
- The act of murder, which is done by an individual, should be done to cause anybody injury, which may be likely to result in death.
- If the act of murder is done with the knowledge that it is going to cause that death.
All the above-mentioned will be considered essential ingredients to fulfil the act of murder.
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—
First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.