IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of specific requirements to invoke the exception, such as a sudden fight, no premeditation, and the absence of undue advantage or cruel behavior by the assailant.

JUDGMENT :

(Goutam Bhaduri, J.) :

Heard.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26/11/2021 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.241/19 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced for Life Imprisonment and was directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo R.I. for 3 months.

2. (A). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Paleshwar Sahu (PW- 2) runs a coffee shop near Ramkrishna Care Hospital. The deceased Jaikumar Sahu was his younger brother. On 17/07/2019 Paleshwar Sahu went to get her wife treated to one Anjali Hospital near Pachpedi Naka and while he was coming back the appellant Sanjay Yadav met him wherein he passed certain comments and stared at his wife with same gesture. After dropping his wife at home he went back to his shop. Subsequently, at about 10.00 pm Sanjay Yadav along with one friend Deepak came to his shop. Paleshwar complained about the behaviour of Sanjay Yadav about starring at his wife to Deepak. On such complaint, Deepak assured that he will make Sanjay understand. Thereafter, Deepak and Sanjay Yadav purchased water pouch, cigarette etc. and went back.

(B). Subsequently, Paleshwar made a phone call to Deepak and asked whether he has explained to control the behaviour of the accused to which Deepak replied that Sanjay Yadav has consumed liquor in excess and is abusing then Paleshwar asked Deepak to talk to Sanjay Yadav and thereafter Paleshwar and Sanjay Yadav had a talk wherein abusive language was exchanged in between them which was heard by the brother of Paleshwar namely Jai Kumar who was accompanied by his friends namely Ayush Kumar and Mehal Chandravanshi. At about 11.45 in the night Paleshwar, Jai Kumar, after closing the shop they were going to their home and Ayush Singh & Mehal Chandravanshi also followed them to enquire about the wellness of the wife of Paleshwar. At about 11.15 in the night when they reached near Jhanda Chowk as Jai Kumar, the deceased, was going upfront at a distance saw that Sanjay Yadav was sitting alone in the square. Sanjay called the deceased Jai Kumar and started quarreling and the accused assaulted Jai Kumar on his abdomen by way of knife thereby the deceased fell down on the spot itself. Thereafter, when the deceased was taken to the hospital he was declared dead.

(C). Thereafter, the merg intimation was sent from the hospital and on that basis the merg was registered; panchnama inquest was prepared; and the dead body was subjected to postmortem thereafter on the statement of the initial disclosure, the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered. The knife/weapon used for commission of offence was also seized on the memorandum of the accused and the query report was also received by the prosecution. Thereafter, the weapon and seized clothes were sent for FSL.

3. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has heavily relied on the ocular testimony of the eye witness i.e. Ayush Kumar Singh (PW-1), Paleshwar Sahu (PW-2) and Mehal Chandravanshi (PW-8) whereas the statement of the witnesses would show that they have contradicted the happening of the incident by their own statement. He would further submit that Paleshwar Sahu (PW-2), who is the interested witness being the brother of the deceased was available on 18/07/2019 when the memorandum Ex. P/7 was recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded immediately, though he was available and for the first time on 30/07/2019 his statement was recor