The judgment establishes the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and the distinction between murder under Section 302 and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II based on the presence of premeditation and knowledge of the likely consequences of the act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment, dated 14.10.2009, passed in S.C.No.85 of 2008 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam.

2. Appellant is the sole accused. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 427 and 304 II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By his judgment, dated 14.10.2009, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam found appellant/sole accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 427 IPC and found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 II IPC, accordingly convicted him and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of part of the said fine, appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six(6) months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid to PW.1, who is wife of deceased, towards compensation in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused filed the present Criminal Appeal.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:-

There are civil disputes between the appellant and one Anakapalli Sanyasi Nadu (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased') with regard to drawing of irrigation water to their fields from Gorja. While the matter stood thus, on 16.09.2007 at about 7.15 hours, when the deceased went to his fields for attending agricultural works, at that time, the accused, whose fields also located by the side of the fields of the deceased, damaged the bunds of the fields of the deceased, for which an altercation took place between both of them. During that galata, appellant beat the deceased with hands and legs and also with an iron agricultural implement on the head of the deceased, leading to causing of bleeding injury. Later, on the complaint of the deceased, Ponduru Police registered a case in Cr.No.126 of 2007 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 427 IPC. The injured-deceased was admitted in the hospital and later succumbed to the injuries while undertaking treatment. Later, the police altered the Section of law from Sections 324, 323, 427 IPC to 302 IPC. The police, after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused.

4. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rajam.

5. On appearance of appellant/accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Division, Srikakulam. Later, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.85 of 2008 and made over to the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam.

6. On appearance of appellant/accused, charges under Sections 302 and 427 IPC were framed, read over the contents and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.19 besides M.O.1 were marked.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. On behalf of defence Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the appellant not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 427 IPC but found him of the offence punishable under Section 304 II IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to prove that there were civil disputes between the deceased and the appellant by producing relevant documents. Further, the le