The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder under Section 302 and voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC based on the nature of the injuries and the intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J .

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.76/2021, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days to both the appellants.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident i.e. 29.01.2021 at about 3.30 P.M. in village- Temri, Judwanipara, appellant-accused Ashtami Pando in his own house, entered into a quarrel with Rajkumari (daughter of the deceased) along with appellant Mangal Pando for the reason that she residing in his home after coming back from her matrimonial home. During the course of quarrel, Baliram Pando father of Rajkumari intervened and was then abused and beaten by the present appellants by hands and fists. Later, the FIR was lodged against the present appellants upon the compliant made by the deceased in Crime No.291/2021 for the commission of offence under Section 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On 31.01.2021 in midnight, Baliram Pando informed his wife Smt. Sonia and daughter Rajkumari that his stomach is swelling, tongue is twisting and he is experiencing severe pain in the genital area and at around 2.00 A.M., he succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, on the information of the daughter of the deceased, merg was registered. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Community Health Center, Patna, District Korea, where Dr.Mohd.Wasik Asdak (PW-8) conducted postmortem of the deceased and found following injuries:-

Mouth opened, eyes partially opened, liver mortis present over lower back and scapular region, rigor mortis present in both upper & lower limb.

The doctor has opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of spleen (Blood injury) and death was homicidal in nature. After completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 302/34 of the IPC, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Koriya (Baikunthpur), from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) received the case on transfer for trial in accordance with law. The appellants/accused abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

3. In order to bring home the above-stated offences, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which they denied their guilt and have taken the stand that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused examined none in their defence, however, exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 in their support.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.02.2023, convicted the appellants herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned.

5. Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav & Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in crime in question. They have neither participated nor committed the above crime and there is no prima facie evidence against the appellants which shows that the appellants are involved in the aforesaid crime and have committed the aforesaid offence. They further submit that no crime has been committed by the appellants and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the involvement of the appellants and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants only on the basis of presumption and assumption. They also submit that the appellants have been convicted for offe