The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the sole appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment vide judgment dated 6th/7th June, 1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Godda in S.T. Case No.80 of 1996 arising out of Pathergama P.S. Case No.128 of 1995.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell is that on 06.11.1995, some unknown persons have cut and destroyed the pumpkin plants (kaddu) belonging to the brother-in-law(devar) of the informant Sahchari Devi. It is alleged that due to above reason in the evening at about 8:00 PM, the female members namely Kamla Devi and Suniya Devi of Dilmohan Yadav (devar of the informant) started scuffling and abusing, which was protested by the informant’s husband Bhuneshwar Yadav and suggested to settle the matter peacefully. Meanwhile, the present appellant having a lathi came to the informant’s house and dragged her husband towards road and thereafter indiscriminately assaulted him by lathi due to which he sustained severe head injuries. The wife and the daughter of the appellant have also assaulted her husband by means of legs and fists. The injured was brought on bullock cart of one Chakradhar Yadav Pradhan under unconscious state to the hospital for the treatment where Fardbayan of the informant was recorded by the police. On the basis of which FIR was registered for the offences under sections 341, 323, 504, 307 and 34 of IPC against all the above three names accused persons. In the course of treatment, injured Bhuneshwar Yadav died, hence, the case was converted under section 302 of IPC. In the course of investigation, inquest report of the deceased was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.

3. Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 9) has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Bhuneshwar Yadav and found single head injury as mentioned under :

- Lacerated wound on the left parietal temporal region of skull size 2” x 3/4" x 3/4"

- On dissection left parietal temporal bone found fractured with blood clots.

-The cause of death is opined due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above mentioned injuries.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW 10) ASI Rajendra Singh found sufficient evidence against the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet for the offences under sections 302 and 34 of IPC.

5. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.80 of 1996 was registered. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons which they denied and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the present appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above but other two female accused persons who were tried jointly have been extended benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges.

ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence in factual as well as legal aspects. The genesis and manner of occurrence as well as the nature of injuries caused to the deceased does not attract the commission of offence under section 302 of IPC as defined under section 300 (Now section 101 Bhartiya Nayay Sahinta)

Elucidating his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has objected the impugned judgment and order on following amongst other grounds:-

(i) The prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the occurrence took place regarding cutting of pumpkin plants by some unknown persons and thereafter usual scuffle took place between the womenfolk of both parties. The deceased suggested to resolve such trivial dispute p