The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder hinges on the offender's intention, with insufficient evidence of intent leading to a reduced sentence.

JUDGMENT :

SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2022 and the order of sentence dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banka (Bihar) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 249 of 2021, arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2020.

3. By the impugned judgment, referred to above, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 , 323 and 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short referred to as the ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment of one week for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one month each for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC.

Prosecution Case :

4. The prosecution case is based on the written application dated 02.10.2020 given by the informant (P.W. 2). In his written report, the informant has stated that on 02.10.2020 at around 14:00 hours, when he was working at the poultry-farm of his village, one Dhananjay Tanti informed him that his 7 years old son, namely, Sohit Kumar is lying in an unconscious state and is unable to breathe. It is further alleged that when he reached to his home, he found his son dead. Thereafter, the father and the mother of the informant, namely, Bhudev Tanti and Sita Devi, respectively, told the informant that his wife, Suman Devi (appellant), has killed his son by suffocating him.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application, Amarpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2020, dated 02.10.2020, was registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, namely, Ramashray Prasad (P.W. 5) has submitted Charge- Sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 465 of 2020, dated 31.12.2020, under Sections 341 , 323 and 302 of the IPC.

7. Charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, namely, Suman Devi, in Hindi to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The cognizance of the offences under Sections 341 , 323 and 302 of the IPC was taken on 28.01.2021.

9. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited some documentary evidences in course of trial. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being mentioned hereunder in tabular forms:-

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution :

10. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused/appellant denied all the allegations leveled against her and took a plea that she is innocent.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court :

11. The learned Trial Court, after examining all the evidences available on the record, found that the allegation as alleged by the prosecution is beyond all reasonable doubts. Before the death of the deceased, only the accused/appellant (Suman Devi) was present in the house and on the body of the deceased (Sohit Kumar), four nail bites were found in front of neck with bruises and abrasions. The cause of death was “asphyxia due to strangulation”. The accused/appellant has failed to prove that the deceased died naturally.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant :

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the evidences produced by the prosecution are marred by contradictions and, hence, cannot be relied upon in order to conv