The judgment established the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, and the factors to be considered for awarding appropriate sentence under IPC 302 or IPC 304 Part-II.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J.

1. Assailing the legality, correctness, judicial propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 96/2014, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (for short ‘the trial Court’) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentence for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for three months was imposed, the appellant is before this Court in this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).

2. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) on the allegation of committing murder of his wife Manju Markam at about 11.30 a.m. on 14.06.2014 at village Kodekurse.

Facts of the case

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.06.2014, appellant under the influence of liquor demanded money from his wife deceased Manju Markam. When deceased Manju Markam refused to pay the money, the appellant committed murder of the deceased by stabbing with scissors in her stomach which was kept in the home for cutting the cloths and ran away with the scissors. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in the Christian Hospital, Bathena Dhamtari in seriously injured condition by the family members and during treatment at about 11.30 in the night on 15.06.2014 she died. After her death the Police City Kotwali, Dhamtari registered the merg intimation (Ex.P/9) and the postmortem of the dead body was conducted. On receipt of merg diary from Dhamtari, Police Station Kodekurse registered merg intimation (Ex.P/5) and First Information Report (Ex.P/6). During the investigation the appellant was arrested on 26.06.2014. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur and vide order dated 22.09.2014 the same was committed to the Sessions Court. The appellant was charged as aforesaid. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to prove the case examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant examined (DW-1) Sagvanteen Bai in his defence. The trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence and material placed before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above vide impugned judgment dated 22.04.2015 which is challenged before this Court.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

4. Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

(a) The impugned judgment of conviction and award of sentence is completely erroneous, contrary to the evidence and material available on record is bad in law. The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and material placed before it to its proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction. The trial Court committed an error of law as well as fact in marshaling the evidence brought by the prosecution to sustain the conviction.

(b) He submits that the alleged eye-witness does not inspire confidence and she is not reliable witness, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of testimony of the alleged eye-witness. He further submits that the witnesses of oral dying declaration made by the deceased are not trustworthy and it cannot form the basis of conviction of the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.

(c) He further submits that memorandum of the appellant and the seizure of the scissors is not duly proved, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed the offence.

(d) Lastly, he submitted that if the alleged offence was committed by the appellant there was no premeditation and intention on the Part-of the appellant to commit the murder of his wife. The incident occurred on a small issue of nonpayment of money by the deceased and therefore the conviction of the appellant ma