IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a lesser offense of culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2017, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2012,whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in the event of non-payment of fine convict was further directed to undergo SI for additional three months.

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, which as per the written report of the informant Safid Choukidar is that on 29.10.2011, when the informant was going to his house from his duty from State Bank of India, Gando Branch then the villager of Chirudih village informed him that Chunda Murmu has committed murder of his wife. To verifiy this information, he reached near the Chunda Murmu's house where he saw that many persons were gathered there and dead body of Joba Marandi, wife of Chunda Murmu, was lying on the ground and the blood was oozing out from her head. It is further alleged that on inquiry villagers stated that today at about 2:00 p.m. a quarrel was going on between Chunda Murmu and his wife and Chunda Murmu, who remains in drunken state in whole day and did not do any work and his wife maintained her four children anyhow and she being annoyed from her husband wanted to go her father's house Kolha, Police Station Kathikund then Chunda Murmu has prohibited him and when she did not do so and rigid to go to her father's house then Chunda Murmu picked up a ‘wooden pirha’ and given blow forcibly on the head of his wife due to which his wife sustained grievous injury and she fell down in injured condition and died.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant dated 29.10.2011 Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 156/2011 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Chunda Murmu and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officer ha submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Chunda Murmu. Accordingly, the cognizance for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against accused Chunda Murmu and the case stands committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.05.2012 by the Court of C.J.M., Dumka.

4. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused person on 27.09.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses, they are PW 1 Md. Safid, (informant of this case), PW 2 Mallick Marandi, PW 3 Mangal Murmu, PW 4 Bateshwar Marandi (hostile), PW 5 Jitu Murmu (hostile), PW 6 Raska Murmu, PW 7 Md. Nijamuddin, PW 8 Md. Mukhtar Ali, PW 9 Parmeshwar Liyangi, (Investigating Officer of this case), PW 10 Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma (who conducted the postmortem) and PW 11 Manoj Kumar Sharma (formal witness).

6. 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 subject matter of instant appeal.

7. 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.

8. M