JUDGMENT :

[Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.]

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.13/2013, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8-12-2012 at 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein assaulted his father-in-law deceased Amar Singh Yadav by hand & fist by which Amar Singh Yadav suffered injuries on his stomach and died in hospital during the course of treatment pursuant to which report was lodged by the wife of the deceased namely, Smt. Parvati Bai on 11-12-2012 at Police Station Kotwali, Korba and first information report Ex.P-1 was registered. Thereafter, dead body was subjected to panchnama vide Ex.P-9 and on the recommendation of panchas, the dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-8). According to the postmortem report (Ex.P-8), cause of death was rupture of spleen and consequent collection of blood in peritoneum. Thereafter, nazri naksha was prepared vide Exs.P-2 & P-3.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after completion of usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents Exs.P-1 to P-15. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded in which he denied the guilt. However, he examined none in his defence and no document was exhibited on his behalf.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal has been preferred.

6. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the deceased died on account of rupture of spleen and consequent collection of blood in peritoneum and therefore, at the most, offence under Section 323 of the IPC would be made out and the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Raffail v. State of M.P. (now State of Chhattisgarh), 2011(1) CG.L.R.W. 300 (DB) to buttress his submission.

7. Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the deceased has sustained grievous injury on account of the assault made by the appellant and died due to rupture of spleen. The appellant must have had the knowledge that rupture of spleen may likely to cause death and it cannot be held that the appellant has wrongly been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. Relationship between the appellant and the deceased is not in dispute, as the appellant is son-in-law of the deceased to whom he has caused injury by hand & fist by which the deceased suffered injury on his stomach because of which spleen was ruptured and blood was collected on the peritoneum and consequently, the died di