The court established that an act committed in sudden passion without premeditation, leading to a single fatal blow, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. By way of filing this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 111/2022 arising out of FIR No. 18/2022, Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed hereinbelow.

2. The brief facts emerging from the record indicate that complainant Shri Kanaram (PW-09) lodged a written report (Ex.P-10) at Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur on 08.01.2022, stating that on 07.01.2022 at about 11:00 p.m., while he was at his house, he heard loud cries coming from the direction of the house of his elder brother, Hemera s/o Dalu Gameti (aged 40 years). On hearing the noise, he along with his elder brother Jota Gameti, neighbour Panna, and his sister-in-law Bhanwari Bai went towards Hemera’s house, where they saw his nephew Tara Gameti assaulting Hemera. Out of fear, Hemera moved towards the hand pump located near Mahadevji temple, but Tara allegedly followed him with a lathi and inflicted multiple blows indiscriminately on his head and body, causing Hemera to fall unconscious near the hand pump. When they approached, they noticed excessive bleeding and found that Hemera had died on the spot.

3. It was further stated that Tara Gameti would frequently quarrel and fight with Hemera over trivial issues and that the death had occurred due to the beating allegedly given by him. As it was late at night and no means of transportation were available, the complainant could not report the matter immediately. On the basis of this written report, FIR No.18/2022 (Ex.P-14) was registered for offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC , and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 08.03.2022 before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, Udaipur for offences under and 302 , and the case being triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing on charge, framed, read, and explained the charges under Sections 341 and 302 IPC to the accused on 10.05.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents, whereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the allegations and claimed false implication, and the defence also exhibited documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2023 convicted the appellant for the said offences, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence adduced at trial, the material on record, and the surrounding circumstances, the following aspects emerge for due consideration:

Evaluation of Ocular Testimony and Factual Matrix

6. The prosecution’s case primarily rests on the ocular version of PW-9 Kanaram (informant), PW-11 Jota Ram (brother of the deceased), PW-12 Panna (uncle of the deceased), and PW-14 Bhanwari (wife of the deceased and mother of the accused). Out of these, PW-9 and PW-11 are the only witnesses who claim to have actually seen the accused chasing and assaulting the deceased. PW-12 and PW-14 reached thereafter and are not eyewitnesses to the act of assault.

7. PW-9 Kanaram deposed that upon hearing