The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

Heard Mr. S. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the appellant on behalf of the accused, against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2018, passed by the learned Session Judge, Tezu, East Session Division, Arunachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 05/CLG/2012, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, convicting the accused under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 21.09.2011, one Khifuja Yobin lodged a complaint before the Circle Officer, Vijaynagar against the present accused-Tashi Sherpa with the allegation that in the evening of 15.09.2011, at about 7.45 p.m., the accused eloped with his daughter, Ms. X (name withheld), from Bazar Line, Vijaynagar. When the accused was enquired by the village authority, he admitted that he gave Rs. 1,000/- to her and sent her with a torch to Yobin Camp, Miao where she was asked to wait for him. But, despite their best efforts, they could not found his daughter and during inquiry, the police received an information regarding recovery of a dead body on 22.09.2011 and accordingly, VNR P.S. Case No. 04/2011, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered. Thereafter, in absence of the superior police officer at Vijaynagar Police Station, the Head Constable Mr. Awad Kumar Mehta was instructed over telephone to visit the place of occurrence and to conduct the inquest and also to prepare a rough sketch map of P.O. on 22.09.2011. Later on, the investigation was taken up by I.O. Late Toji Singpho. During the course of investigation, she recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses and also seized some material evidences. The accused, who was brought before the Gaon Burah, also admitted that he sent the deceased to Yobin Camp Miao with a torch and Rs. 1,000/- and he admitted the same before the learned Magistrate while his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further admitted in his confessional statement that she pushed down the deceased girl to a deep George resulting to her death. Accordingly, finding a prima facie case, the Charge-Sheet was filed under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On receipt of the case from the committal Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, East Session Division, Arunachal Pradesh, accordingly framed charge against the accused under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and after recording all the 17 numbers of witnesses, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and hearing the arguments put forwarded by learned counsels for both sides, the judgment was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 05/CLG/2012 convicting the accused under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

5. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2018, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant on behalf of the accused.

6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the judgment, did not consider the evidence of the prosecution in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong decision and the conviction order was passed only relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. From the entire evidences on record and other circumstances of this case, it is seen that there is no conclusive prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the alleged offence and thus, the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge is bad in law and