The distinction between murder and culpable homicide lies in the presence of intent and premeditation, with spontaneous acts being treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Judgment :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal jail appeal has been received by post on behalf of the appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.132/2013 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 17.06.2013 at about 01:30 PM, complainant- Parwati provided an oral statement to the police at the scene of the incident. She reported that while she and her husband, Bagdiram, were engaged in agricultural activities in their field, the accused-appellant, Rama, approached armed with an axe. Upon seeing Rama, her husband rushed towards him to prevent him from cultivating the land. Suddenly, the accused-appellant struck an axe blow to the neck and other parts of the deceased's body. The complainant shouted for help and, along with her mother-in-law, rushed to the scene. They observed that, as a result of the axe blow inflicted by the accused, the deceased’s neck was severed from his body. It is further alleged that there was an ongoing land dispute between the accused-appellant and the complainant's family, which, according to the prosecution, served as the motive for the accused to commit the murder of her husband, Bagdiram.

3. On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR No.108/2013 against the accused appellant and started investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the accused- appellant and on completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused appellant. He denied the charge and sought trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

6. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.

7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 19.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

8. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned amicus curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the appellant lacked any premeditated intent to cause harm to the deceased. He contends that the act of assault was spontaneous and occurred in a moment of sudden provocation. Furthermore, he asserts that the appellant did not possess any motive or intention to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, he prays that the appellant should not be held liable for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, but rather be convicted under Section 304 PART I of the IPC. Additionally, counsel emphasizes that since the incident occurred in the year 2013 and the appellant has already served approximately thirteen years and nine months of imprisonment, including remission, he respectfully requests that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be accordingly reduced to the period already un