The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the application of the appropriate section based on the evidence and intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J .

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-12-2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in ST No.30/2019 whereby the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 17-3-2019 the complainant Kanu Ram (PW-1) was at his residence and at that time Mahadev Baghel (since deceased) came by beating the drum ¼ढksy½ ; the appellant followed him; and also asked for a drum, however, the deceased refused to give the same, therefore, on this issue, the dispute aggravated and they entered into scuffle. In the process, the head of the deceased was smashed on stone wall on 3-4 times, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the floor and thereafter, the other villagers were informed; police came; and merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was registered subsequently. When it was found that the deceased has died, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and it was opined that death was caused because of ante mortem injury. The drum was seized and after recording statements of the witnesses the charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned above. Thus, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no eyewitness is present in this case. She would further submit that the evidence would show that the deceased and the accused entered into the room and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found inside the room, but the cause of death, as has been stated was smashing the head against the wall would show that it cannot be attributed to the accused/appellant alone. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself to evaluate the evidence and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, which is required to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the evidence of PW-1 Kanu Ram would reveal that prior to the incident, the deceased and appellant had a quarrel which would show that previous enmity was existing between them and taking advantage of situation with all deliberation the appellant has killed the deceased. He would further submit that the death was homicidal in nature, which is proved by PW-4 Dr.Sumant Sen. There is no other witness to rebut or doubt the incident, therefore, the impugned judgment is well merited, which do not call for any interference of this Court.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P/7 and the cause of death has been shown that head injury results in subdural hemorrhage and thick layer of blood clot. The same is proved by PW-4 Dr.Sumant Sen. According to the statement of PW-4 Dr.Sumant Sen, the injury was ante mortem in nature and it was opined that because of such injury inflicted on the deceased, the death could have caused. It was further stated that the injury on head was caused by heavy article or by smashing the head against some hard surface. In the cross-examination, it is further stated that even if the deceased fell on the hard surface the said injury could have been caused, therefore, the death was homicidal in nature, which has been proved by the prosecution.

8. The prosecution heavily relied on the statement of PW-1 Kanu Ram. According to him, on the date of incident the deceased came to his house while beatin