The court affirmed that intent to inflict injury leading to death established the act as murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of unintentional harm from sudden quarrel.

JUDGMENT :

[Y. Longkumer, J.]

1. Heard Mr. N. J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor Assam appearing for the State respondents.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge (FTC), Sonitpur, Tezpur in Session Case No. 69/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing the murder of Suraj Das under Section 302 IPC for life and fine of Rs 10,000/- with a default clause. And also rigorous imprisonment of a period of

3(three) months for offence under Section 447 IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the appellant had entered into the house of the deceased at around 6:30 pm on 27.12.2017 and had cut the stomach of the deceased with a “Kolam Kotari”. The accused fled away and the deceased was taken to Tezpur Medical Hospital where he passed away. On 28.12.2017, the informant/wife of the deceased had lodged an FIR before the O.C Rangapara P.S. and the same was registered under Section 447 /302 IPC. As per the usual procedure, the police took up the matter for investigation and thereafter submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 447 /302 IPC. Charge was framed against the appellant u/s 447 and 302 IPC on 22.05.2018, and it was read over and explained to him. However, since the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

4. In order to bring home the charges brought against the appellant, the prosecution side had examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Doctor i.e. PW/9 who had conducted the post mortem examination and the I.O. of the case being PW/8. The defence also examined the wife of the appellant as DW 1. The prosecution had relied mainly upon the following;

(i) There are two direct eye witnesses in the present case.

(ii) The weapon used in the incident was discovered on being led by the appellant.

(iii) The motive behind the offence is present and the nature of injuries described in the post mortem aligns with the seized weapon.

5. Upon examining the evidence available on record, the learned trial court was of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant and proved the charge brought against the appellant under Section 302 /447 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 learned Amicus has submitted that as per the testimony of PW/1 and PW/2, the deceased was cooking food in his house at the time of the incident. At that time the appellant came to his house and there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has projected a case that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased at that point of time and in the sudden fight which ensued, the deceased who was holding a kitchen knife was injured by the same in the scuffle. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince the court that the present case will come under Exception 4 to section 300 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the injury to the deceased was committed without pre meditation in