The court ruled that the incident was a sudden fight, reducing the conviction of appellant No.1 from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part-II of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 12.04.2018/18.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333 of 2012 arising out of Sarath P.S. Case No.66 of 2012 (hereinafter called the impugned judgment), whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 has been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant Nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku and Ramdhani Soren have been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment of 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based upon fardbayan of one Gobardhan Kisku recorded by A.S.I. namely Narendra Kumar of Sarath Police Station dated 10.05.2012 at about 11:00 hours at P.S.C. Sarath, stating inter alia that on 10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, while the informant was irrigating vegetables in his field, meanwhile, he received information from his nephew that Kamu Kisku, Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku are demolishing his house. The Informant rushed to his home along with his brother Ramesh Kisku(since deceased) and protested against the illegal demolition of the house, but the accused persons were armed with swords, farsas, lathis and dandas started assaulting and abusing them with intention to kill. It is further alleged that Kamu Kisku gave a sword blow on the head of Ramesh Kisku, who got severe head injury and was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment, where he ultimately died and other family members of the informant have also sustained injuries through deadly weapons.

On the basis of above information, FIR was registered and charge of investigation was taken by A.S.I. Narendra Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Sarath Police Station. In course of investigation, inquest report of the deceased was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer has interrogated the several witnesses and found sufficient evidence against the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet for the offences under sections 447, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the above named accused persons. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to court of Sessions, where S. Case No.333 of 2012 was registered and in due course came to file of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar for favour of trial and disposal.

3. Charges were framed against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 447, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses following documents were also adduced:-

Ext.1:- Fardbayan of Gobardhan Kisku recorded by ASI Narendra Kumar, Sarath Police Station.

Ext.1/1:- Statement of informant-Gobardhan Kisku recorded by S.I. A.G. Imam Khan of Bariyatu Police Station recorded on 12.05.2012 at about 12:15 hours at Ranchi.

Ext.2:- Signature of Gobardhan Kisku on inquest report.

Ext. 3 to 3/4:- Five injury reports

Ext.1/2:-Requisition and endorsement on fardbayan.

Ext.4 to 4/4:- requisition for treatment and preparation for injury report of injured persons.

5. The case of accused persons, in their statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

6. The learned trial court after apprising and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record has held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated above.

7.