IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that intention to kill can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used and the manner of the attack, affirming that the use of a deadly weapon in a violent context supports a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned Amicuson behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 08.01.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2014 / CIS No. IPC-5034 of 2014 and vide order dated 13.01.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. Two brothers have been killed by the appellant, who is the own brother of the two deceased. As the prosecution story goes, the Informant (PW-3), who is the wife of one of the deceased/Sagir Mian, lodged a Fardbeyan on 14.06.2013 at the place of occurrence, which is in village Ranglalhi, in the district of West Champaran that while her husband (late Sagir Mian) was carrying out construction of a house under the Indira Awas Scheme on the family land allocated in his share, the appellant, who is the own brother of the two deceased came and took away the spade from Sagir and hit him by that spade. As a result of such assault, Sagir was seriously injured in his right shoulder and he started bleeding profusely.

4. According to PW-3, her husband became unconscious immediately. In the meantime, the elder brother of the husband viz. Suleman Mian (another deceased) came from a nearby Mosque and questioned the appellant about his conduct. Infuriated by this, the appellant is alleged to have taken out a knife from his pocket and thrust it in the stomach of aforenoted Suleman Mian, resulting in the innards of the stomach coming out and Suleman dying instantaneously. The appellant left the knife at the P.O. and ran away. The husband of PW-3 died immediately whereas Suleman was taken to a hospital by co-villagers for treatment and he also later succumbed to the injuries.

5. On the basis of aforenoted fardbeyan statement, Dhanaha P.S. Case No.91/2013 dated 14.06.2013 was registered for investigation for offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the I.P.C.

6. The police after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant whereupon cognizance was taken and the appellant was put on trial.

7. The Trial court, after having examined fourteen witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and two on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

8. Mr. Mishra, the learned Amicus, while assailing the judgment has submitted that apart from PW-3 who is wife of one of the deceased, there is no other eye-witness to the occurrence.

9. There was no dispute between Sagir Mian or Suleman Mian with the appellant. The family property had already been partitioned and a house under the Indira Awas Scheme was being constructed over the land which had fallen in the share of Sagir Mian. Apart from this, he has urged that there is a definite motive of PW3 in falsely framing the appellant as such accusation against him would have resulted in further division in the property with advantage to PW-3.

10. The Amicus also drew the attention of this Court to the suggestion given to PW-3 that Suleman owed money to Sagir and when the same was demanded by Sagir, an altercation took place between Sagir and Suleman, leading to death of both of them. Suleman was said to have threatened Sagir with a knife and Sagir, in order to save himself, took away the knife from Suleman and hit him in stomach. Sagir was also injured in process.

11. He has further submitted that if this plea of the defence is not accepted, then at least it can surely be said that there was no intention of the appellant of killing either of the deceased as he had no dispute with both of them. In that event, it was only an act which though caused death but did not amount to homicidal murder. It was only an accident that both the brothers of the appellant died.

12. The