The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting the appellant's claims of lack of evidence and premeditation. The court dismissed the appellant's plea for a lesser punishment under Section 304, Part-II of the IPC, citing the absence of sudden fight in the heat of passion and the appellant's premeditation and cruel actions.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Shri R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri T. A. Mirza learned counsel for respondent/State.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 made by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 513/2014 convicting the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The prosecution version is that there was some dispute between the families of the deceased-Sudhir and the appellant-Machhindra over their childrens clothing. Therefore, on 12.05.2014, Machhindra came to Sudhirs house and enquired with Sudhirs wife Kalpana (PW1) whether Sudhir was at home and if so to send Sudhir out. After Sudhir came out, there was a quarrel between Sudhir and Machhindra on the road and Machhindra murdered Sudhir by inflicting no less than eight grievous injuries with a knife that he had carried with him. According to the prosecution, this murderous assault was witnessed entirely by Shubhangi (PW2), the daughter of Kalpanas sister, and partly by Adesh (PW3), Kalpana, and Sudhirs son.

4. Shri Daga, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was indeed the author of the crime. He submitted that Adesh (PW3) has not witnessed the incident and Shubhangi (PW2) is not a reliable witness. He submitted that the spot panchnama does not refer to Bhushan Popalis (PW4) house at all though Shubhangi (PW2) claims to have witnessed the incident from the terrace of his house. There is no evidence on record to establish that the incident could be seen from the terrace of Bhushan Popalis (PW4) house. There is evidence about the injuries sustained by the appellant and Shubhangi (PW2), who claims to be an eyewitness, failed to give any satisfactory account about the genesis of the incident and these injuries. He submitted that learned Sessions Judge has also totally ignored evidence of Dr. Harshda (PW10) about the injuries sustained by the appellant on his person. Shri Daga, based on all these, submitted that it is impossible to say that the prosecution, in this case, has established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the appellant in the crime.

5. Shri Daga in the alternate submitted that evidence on record does not make out a case under Section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that there is a clear time gap between Sudhir going out to meet the appellant and the alleged assault by the appellant on Sudhir. He submitted that there is clear evidence about a scuffle between the two. He submitted that there is evidence about injuries sustained by the appellant during the scuffle. He submitted that the so-called motive, in this case, is too trivial to warrant any serious consideration. He submitted that there is no evidence of pre-meditation. He submitted that evidence on record, at the highest, points out to sudden fight in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. He submitted that there is no evidence about the appellant having taken undue advantage and acted cruelly or unusually. He submitted that intention to commit death was singularly absent and therefore, and in the alternative, a punishment under Section 304, Part-II of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC could have been imposed.

6. Shri Daga relied on the case of Atul Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 496] to contend that repeated eight knife blows by the accused resulting in the death of the deceased is not sufficient for not to convert the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC to that under Section 300, Part-II of the IPC. He relied upon the case of Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 327] and Gali Venkataiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) ALL MR (Cri) 561 (S.C.)] to submit that in circumstances similar to tho