A conviction for murder requires proof of premeditation or intent; when death results from a single, impulsive blow during a sudden quarrel without prior enmity, the act constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, rather than murder under Section 302.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

(Rajesh Mazumdar, J)

This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 09.05.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Sessions (T-1) Case No.03(N)/2014, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another six months. The appellant had spent 1251 days in custody till the date of judgment by the learned Trial Court.

Incidents leading to the conviction:

2. An investigation was initiated on the death of one Jamaluddin, which was reported as an unnatural death on 2.11.2012. The formal FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 4.11.2012, to the effect that on 2.11.2012, at around 6:30 p.m., the two named accused had called the elder brother of the informant to settle a domestic dispute. When he went there, the accused no. 2 ordered the accused no. 1 to finish off the elder brother of the informant, whereupon the accused no. 1 struck the victim on his head with a bamboo stick, knocking him to the ground. It was stated that although the witness had taken him to the Nagoan Civil Hospital, the victim was declared to have been “brought dead”. The delay in the FIR was explained by referring to the autopsy conducted and the burial procedures.

3. The investigation resulted in Charge Sheet no. 65 of 2013, prepared on 31.01.2013. The present appellant had been put up as an accused to be sent up for trial, while the other accused named in the FIR had not been put up for trial. The learned Trial Court framed the following charge against the present appellant on 20.03.2014:

“That you, on 2.11.12 at around 6:30 PM at Bhakatgaon, committed murder, intentionally causing the death of Jamaluddin.”

4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the Prosecution examined 10 witnesses, and the Defence did not adduce any evidence. During his statement recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence and that he is innocent.

EVIDENCE LED:

5. PW-1 was the informant in the matter, and he stated that he knew the accused. He stated that the deceased was his own brother and the occurrence took place about three years ago at about 6:30 PM on the day. He stated that while he was returning home from the market, he heard commotion coming from the house of the accused as well as the deceased, whose houses were situated adjacent to one another. When he rushed to the house of the deceased, he saw the deceased lying in the courtyard and many people were gathered there. He came to know from the family members of the deceased and other people gathered that the accused had assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his head. By the time he reached, his brother had already expired, and he was taken to the BP Civil Hospital, Nagaon, where the doctor declared him dead. Accordingly, he had lodged the FIR.

In his cross-examination, he stated that his son-in-law, Rustom Ali, wrote the FIR, and he did not know where the FIR was written. He did not know the contents of the FIR, and the FIR had not been read over to him. Also, he did not accompany the dead body to the hospital. When he reached the courtyard of Jamaluddin, it was evening, and many peopl