Point of Law: In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C. No. 1322/2014 dated 14.11.2018 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-and default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. In this appeal seeking intervention for consideration of grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and acquit the appellant-accused.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri Rakshith.R for the appellant-accused and learned Addl.SPP for State namely Sri Vijay Kumar Majage. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of prosecution that on 28.05.2014 at around 3.25 a.m. in the night hours, at the house of CW.2 i.e., first floor, No. 2, 3rd Main, Raghavendra Layout, Yeshwantapura whereby accused picked up quarrel with Manoj Tirke in respect of the ancestral property standing in the name of their grandfather and more so, they are the cousins and relatives and natives of Sendhil Village, Ranchi District, Jharkhand State. The accused, Manoj Tirke, CW.6 to CW.13 came to Bengaluru, started painting work under C.W.17 and they were residing in a rented house belonging to CW.2. On the fateful day, the accused had started quarrel with the deceased in respect of the property which stands in the name of their grand father. The accused assaulted the deceased with means of wooden reaper on the head portion. As a resultant of that assault made by the accused, injured-Manoj Tirke succumbed to injuries on the same day as where the incident took at the scene of crime on 28.05.2014 at around 3.25 a.m. in the night hours.

4. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of complaint by PW.1, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P.7 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequent to setting criminal law into motion whereby PW.13 being the IO proceeded with the case for investigation and thoroughly investigation was done by him. During the course of investigation he drew the panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of PWs.1 to 3 whereby they subscribed their signatures. Apart from that he conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P3 in the presence of panch witnesses. During the course of investigation, he secured PM report as per Ex.P4 and so also, recorded statement of witnesses inclusive of securing the wound certificate as per Ex.P13 and also conducted one more panchanama as per Ex.P14. The entire investigation was thoroughly done by him and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court. Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet against the accused, that the accused was secured to facing of trial and wherein the committal Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. Subsequent to receipt of charge sheet materials the trial Court proceeded with the case for trial in S.C. No. 1322/2014. Heard on charge by learned Public Prosecutor for State and the defense counsel for the accused wherein the charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was read over to the accused in the language known to him wherein he denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed and plea of the accused was recorded.

6. Subsequently, the case against the accused was put on trial by the prosecution to prove the guilt against accused. Accordingly, PWs.1 to 13 were subjected to examination and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 and so also, got marked M.Os.1 to 4. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution the accused was subje