IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide is based on the intention or knowledge of the accused at the time of the act, and that sudden provocation can mitigate the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 16.09.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial Case No. 241 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.10,000/- [ten thousand] and in the event of default of payment of fine convict was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution Case:

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.

3. As per fardbeyan (Ext.1/3) of the informant P.W.8 Janki Kui, which was recorded by P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police, Binod Oraon, Officer-in-charge, Manjhari P.S. on 23.6.2012 at 6.00 hours at near house of Badhai Pingua at Jangiburu, the case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.6.2012 at 05.45 p.m. in the evening her husband Birsa Banra (now deceased) was sitting alongwith Bamia Pinuga under tamarind tree situated in front of the house of Badai Pingua, where Bamia Pingua was making plough with adze, he demanded his due amount of Rs.250/- from her husband. Her husband showed inability to return the due amount at once. Upon this Bamia Pingua inflicted blows upon him with adze on his head and the neck as a result of which her husband Birsa Banra @ Michai Banra died on the spot. Her fardbyean was read before her, she heard and understood it.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, First Information Report being Manjhari P.S. Case No.15 of 2012 was registered under Section 302 of I.P.C against the accused and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused and vide order dated 18.09.2012 cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the aforesaid accused, which being exclusively triable by court of sessions, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.10.2012, by learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Chaibasa. In due course, this case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa court for trial and disposal.

5. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Balmiki Tamsoy, P.W.-2 Madan Mohan Birua, P.W.-3 Mathura Tamsoy, P.W.-4 Pratap Purty, P.W.-5 Budhan Singh Tamsoy, P.W.-6 Arjun Tamsoy, P.W.-7 Kushnu Banra, P.W.-8 Informant, Janki Kui, P.W.-9 Dr. Binod Kumar Pandit, who conducted postmortem, P.W.-10 Sagar Tamsoy, P.W.-11 I.O., S.I., Vinod Oraon and P.W.-12 Manoranjan Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused and found the charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

8. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under consideration before this Court as to whether the trial Court, while convicting the accused person, has committed any illegality or not.

Argument on behalf of appellant:

9. Mr. Piyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the