The court distinguished between culpable homicide and murder, ruling that a single blow does not imply intent to kill, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 13/2019 (GR Case No. 943/2018), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The said case involves the killing of the father by the appellant for which he has been convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment and order.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 16.09.2018 by PW-1. In the said Ejahar, it was alleged that on the previous day i.e., 15.09.2018 at around 5.30 a.m., an altercation took place between his brother-in-law (appellant) and father-in-law (deceased) over the issue of a bicycle in which the appellant, in a fit of rage hit on the head of the deceased with a piece of firewood which was lying nearby causing grievous injury causing the death of the deceased.

4. After registration of the Ejahar, the investigation had begun in which the appellant was arrested, statements of the witnesses were examined, the body was taken for post-mortem, Sketch Map was prepared and after completion of the formalities, the Charge Sheet was laid. Based on the above, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] by the learned trial court and on its denial the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

5. PW-1 is the informant, who is the son-in-law of the deceased and the brother-in-law of the appellant. He had deposed that he heard from the neighbour regarding the incident and accordingly had gone to the Gaonburah, who had called the police. He had also deposed of a confession made by the appellant before the police. The FIR was proved as Ext. 1. In his cross- examination he had clarified that he had not seen how the deceased had received the injuries and that his house was about half kilometer away from the place of occurrence. He had also deposed about the presence of the wife and mother-in-law in the house of the deceased at the time of the occurrence.

6. PW-2 is a resident of the locality who had also similarly deposed of getting the information about the incident from his wife. He had accordingly gone to the place of occurrence where police was already there and the appellant had made a confession before the police. He is a witness to the seizure by which the firewood used in the assault was seized as Material Ext. 1 and the seizure list was proved as Ext. 2. In the cross-examination, he had clarified of not witnessing as to how the deceased had received the injuries.

7. PW-3 is another person of the locality who had similarly deposed of hearing about the incident while returning from the market and had accordingly gone to the place of occurrence. He had also deposed of the appellant making a confession before the police and is also a witness to the seizure list.

8. PW-4 had deposed about hearing the incident from the villagers and going to the place of occurrence. His further deposition is similar to that of PW-2 and PW-3.

9. PW-5 who is a resident of the locality had deposed of coming to know of the incident from PW-2 and PW-9 and on coming to the place of occurrence found the appellant sitting on a bench in the house. He had also deposed of the appellant making a confession before the police. In the cross-examination he clarified of not witnessing the incident. He is also a witness to the seizure list.

10. PW-6 who is also a person of the locality had stated that he came to learn about the incident and accordingly had gone to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant sitting on the verandah of the house and police was already there. He had however stated regarding the reason for the assault which was selling of a bicycle by the deceased and keeping the sale proceeds. In the cross- examination he had however admitted that at the