The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception II and IV to Section 300 of IPC in cases of sudden quarrel and heat of passion, leading to an alteration of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 06/03/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.235/2017 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 IPC (two times) and under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 Year, R.I. for 6 months and Life Imprisonment with usual default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01/05/2017 the accused Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav (A/1) was leveling a land with help of hired tractors which originally belong to Sukhlal Yadav (PW-10) which was objected by Sukhlal Yadav (PW-10), Sobilal, the deceased and Smt. Sulo Bai (PW-4) claiming that the land belong to them. The drivers of tractor which was being used for leveling the field were threatened, due to which they stopped the work of leveling the said field. Offended by the fact that the tractors has been stopped from working, Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav (A/1) and Devendra Yadav (A/2) came to the place of incident wherein some altercation took place between deceased and his allies. Thereafter accused asked both the tractor drivers to continue the leveling the field. Subsequently, the dispute got even more aggravated and the appellants/accused came armed with an iron rod and wooden plank and assaulted Sobilal Yadav (deceased) on his head and Sukhlal Yadav (PW-10) & Smt. Sulo Bai (PW-4). The injured persons were thereafter referred to the doctor. The doctor on the primary opinion came to a conclusion that the injury was grievous in nature and referred for treatment to the higher center. Subsequently, after few days Sobilal Yadav (deceased) succumbed to such injury and the dead body when was subjected to postmortem the nature of death was reported to be homicidal.

3. The police after recording the statement of the witnesses filed the charge-sheet before the Court.

4. During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on their behalf examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. After entire trial the appellants were convicted as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that none of the witnesses have stated anything about the role played by Devendra Yadav (A/2) and initial report i.e. Dehatinalisi which was made immediately after incident (Ex. P/3) in which the entire assault was attributed to Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav (A/1). He would further submit that the eye witness Arun Yadav (PW-5), who is the son of the deceased tried to improve his statement before the Court and tried to inculpate Devendra Yadav (A/2) though according to the Dehatinalisi Devendra Yadav (A/2) has not played any role. He would further submit that the incident occurred on a spur of moment in a sudden provocation for the reason that the altercation broke out due to leveling of the land was objected wherein the accused persons were carrying on their agriculture for the last three years. The said objection resulting altercation led to sudden provocation and on spur of moment the assault took place, therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is required to be modified/altered to exception II to Section 300 of IPC.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the witnesses Kunwar Singh Yadav (PW-3), Smt. Sulo Bai (PW-4), Arun Yadav (PW-5) & Sukhlal Yadav (PW-10) have categorically deposed about the role played by both the appellants. He would further submit that reading of their statements simplicitor would lead to show that both the appellants actively participated in commission of crime which lead to death of Sobilal Yadav and injury to Smt. Sulo