Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC - The judgment established the application of exception (4) to Section 300 IPC, which considers cases where the assault is made suddenly at the heat of passion in the course of a quarrel, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

JUDGMENT

M. A. Ali, J. - Heard Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the respondent State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2011 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that at about 3 AM on 07.11.2014, a fight took place between the deceased Anil Bora and accused Debaru Majhi @ Samra Tanti, both of whom were employees of Shambu Shil. The appellant Samra Tanti inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with an iron rod, which caused his death. An FIR was lodged by the employer of the deceased as well as the accused/appellant, which was registered by police as Margherita P.S. Case No. 172/2006 under Section 302 IPC and eventually submitted charge sheet against the appellant upon completion of the investigation.

4. During trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants under Section 302 IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the doctor and the investigating officer. During examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant pleaded innocence.

5. Pw-1, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, found the following injuries

"(i) One lacerated wound on left side of frontal region with fracture of underlying bone and injury to the brain of size 2.7 cm x 2 cm produced by blunt force impact.

(ii) One lacerated would on the left temporal region with underlying fracture of temporal bone and injury to the brain of size 5cm x 2 cm produced by blunt force impact.

(iii) One lacerated wound on the left parietal region with underlying fracture of bone and injury to the brain of size of 4 cm x 2 cm produced by blunt force impact. Both upper eye-lids are swollen and bluish in colour.

(iv) The right thumb is crushed on the distal falanx only dorsal portion of skin is intact. The injury is produced by blunt force impact.

(v) An area of abrasion on the upper left quadrant of abdomen with bluish discoloration of the skin of size 7cm x 3 cm produced by blunt force impact. Underlying spleen is found ruptured.

(vi) A lacerated wound on the medical border of right foot involving the skin and underlying muscles of size 10cm x 5 cm produced by blunt force impact."

According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. All the injuries were antemortem and homicidal in nature.

6. The informant, Sambhu Shil has been examined as PW-3, who testified, that the appellant and the deceased were employees in his shop. At about 2/2.30 AM at night, the Pandit of the Sikh Temple situated in front of his hotel, informed him over phone that a quarrel was going on in his hotel and asked him to come to the hotel. Immediately he came and found his employee Anil Bora lying dead. He also found the accused Samra Tanti at the place of occurrence. According to him, quarrel took place between Anil Bora (deceased) and the accused/appellant (Samra Tanti).

7. Pw-4, Ram Bahadur Chetry, the lone eye witness to the occurrence, was also an employee of the PW-3, Sambhu Shil. He deposed that at about 2 AM, he woke up from sleep hearing 'halla ' in the hotel and noticed that the accused Samra Tanti was assaulting the deceased Anil Bora with an iron rod. Though, he tried to restrain the appellant, he also attempted to assault him and therefore PW-4 had fled away out of fear. He also stated to have noticed injury on the head of the deceased. During cross examination, it was elicited that the deceased used to insult the accused.

8. Pw-5 & PW-6 were post-occurrence witnesses and according to them, they came to know about the occurrence on the next morning.

9. Pw-2 was the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of