IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the death of the deceased, and the application of relevant case laws to determine the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.1993 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 20/1990, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report to the effect that appellant no.2 Vela Ram has expired. Therefore, the present criminal appeal qua the appellant no.2 stands abeted.

3. The concise facts of the case are that a First Information Report was registered in respect of incident alleged to have taken place on 20.03.1990 in which Smt. Khimi received injuries with Kudal as a result of which she died and Pakka Ram and Jatna also received simple injuries. A FIR was registered about commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323/34 IPC and later on, offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

4. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused-persons for offence under Section 302, 324, 323/34 IPC. Thereafter, separate charges were framed against the accused. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12.02.1993 convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that there was no intention whatsoever to cause death of deceased Khimi. The deceased had obstructed the way of appellant and therefore, on the spur of the moment, the appellant gave a single blow which proved fatal. Thus, there was no intention or knowledge on behalf of appellant to cause death of deceased, therefore, the offence does not travel beyond 325 IPC or at the most offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. Further, the incident relates back to year 1990 and the appellant who is now 65 years of age has remained in custody for a period of five months and 13 days. If this Court does not deem it a case fit for acquittal, then while converting the conviction of appellant from offence under Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and without making any interference on merits/conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1980 SCC 91, Manibhai Vithalbhai Machhi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 791, Sujan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 69, Mavila Thamban Nambiar Vs. State of kerala reported in Manu/SC/ 0164/1997 and Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0651/2021.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court may be sust