IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement of premeditated intention for a murder conviction.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.

2. This is a jail appeal which arises out of the Judgment passed by the learned Session Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No. 705/2009 corresponding to GR Case No. 705/2007 and Dillai Police Station Case No. 02/2007, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default R.I. for 6 (six) months.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell, is that an F.I.R. was filed by a Sri Dhruba Chetry on 28.12.2007 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dillai Police Station, Karbi Anglong, Assam to the effect that on 28.12.2007 at about 1:00 A.M. Shri Rajendra Chetry of Chunabasti entered their house by breaking the door and trampled his father Tilok Bahadur Chetry, by inflicting grievous injury to him which caused his death and the accused has fled away. After the incident the people of the village captured the said Shri Rajendra Chetry, but he had escaped again. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Dillai, Police Station registered the FIR as Dillai P.S. Case No. 02/07 under Section 302 IPC dated 28.12.2007 at 8:30 A.M.

4. The case was duly investigated into by the case I/O, Shri Swapan Chhaterjee, S.I. of Police. The I/O visited the place of occurrence and forwarded the death body of Tilok Bhahadur Chetry to Diphu Civil Hospital for post mortem examination and collected report subsequently. He also took the statements of the informant at the Police Station and the statement of the other witnesses at the place of occurrence, he prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. The accused/appellant was also arrested on the same day, from market place. From his investigation, the Investigating Officer found that prima facie cases for the offence under Section 302 IPC was well established against the accused and submitted the charge sheet. The learned Trial Court on receipt of the case records of GR No. 705/2007 registered the case as Session case No. 07/2009. Thereafter, on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence counsel, the learned Trial court on 10.06.2009 framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC for ‘forcibly entering the house of the complainant Sri Dhruba Chetri and committed murder to Tilok Bahadur Chetri, the father of the complainant, causing his death on the spot’ which was explained to the accused Rajendra Chetry to which he pleaded not guilty claimed to be trial. During trial as many as 5 (five) prosecution witnesses were examined out of the 7 (seven) Nos. of the prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet. On his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the stand of the accused was of complete denial. No defence witnesses were examined.

5. The learned trial court after considering the evidence on record and on hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as mentioned above. Aggrieved the accused appellant has filed instant appeal.

6. Mr. H. Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the daughter of PW-1, Ms. Sabitri Chetri, is the only eye witness to the incident and a vital witness, but she was not examined in the court as prosecution witness. PW-1, is the wife of the deceased, she was also in the house at the time of the incident but she did not witness the incident and was in the adjacent room. She alleged that she saw the accused/appellant come out of the room after the alleged incident happened. The other prosecution witness PW Nos. 2 came to the P.O. the next date, on being informed, PW-5, who is the informant was also informed of the incident and he rushed to the P.O. and saw the dead body of his father, thereafter, he filed the FIR. The PWs were not eye witnesses. The learned Amicus Cur