The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to cause death is a crucial factor in determining whether an act amounts to murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. putting to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2016 and order of sentence dated 12.12.2016/13.12.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6th, Bhabua in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2013, Trial No. 116 of 2014 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2012, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We have heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. A fardbeyan of the informant (PW-3), recorded at 09:00 AM on 14.06.2012 by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Chainpur Police Station is the basis for registration of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2012 on 14.06.2012. It is the prosecution's case, as disclosed by the informant, that at 07:00 AM on 14.06.2012, when the informant was preparing meal inside the house and her husband (the deceased) was ready to leave the house with his Rikshaw, the appellant and co-accused Ramdhyan Bind started abusing him in connection with an existing land dispute. When the deceased forbade them from doing so, the appellant Ashok Bind, co-accused Ramdhyan Bind and Guddu Bind started assaulting the deceased. The appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased with ballam, which he was carrying, in his lumbar region whereupon he fell down. Co-accused Guddu Bind assaulted the informant with lathi. It is noteworthy that in the FIR there was no specific allegation that co-accused Ramdhyan Bind and Guddu Bind had also assaulted the deceased with lathi.

4. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted its charge-sheet, whereupon cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 20.04.2012. The case was subsequently committed to the court of Sessions for trial whereafter charges were framed against this appellant and co-accused Ramdhyan Bind for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial, altogether 10 witnesses came to be examined including the informant (PW-3), I.O. (PW-5), the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination (PW-8), and the Doctors who had prepared the injury report of the injuries on the persons of the informant and the injured Ramawati Devi as PWs. 9 and 10 respectively. PWs. 4, 6 and 7 came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.

5. Based on the appreciation of evidence adduced at the trial, the trial court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2016 has acquitted the co-accused Ramdhyan Bind and Guddu Bind giving them benefit of doubt. The appellant, however, has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as has been noted at the very outset.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court, Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that if the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses are closely scrutinized, it can be easily inferred that none of them are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He has further submitted that based on same set of evidence, the trial court has considered it fit to acquit the co-accused Ramdhyan Bind and Guddu Bind, giving them benefit of doubt. In such circumstance, it was not just and proper on the part of the trial court to have convicted the appellant as the entire case of the prosecution was found to be doubtful to the trial court so far as the same related to the co-accused Ramdhyan Bind and G