The court held that the actions of the appellants constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reflecting a lack of intent to kill in the context of a sudden quarrel over a land dispute.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the present appellants through jail petition while in custody challenging their conviction dated 20.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.242 of 2003 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.87 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2880 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo R.I for life along with fine of Rs.500/- each.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on28.11.2002 at about 11:00 am, the informant, Bindwa Devi along with her husband Nageshwar Rana were harvesting their paddy crop. Meanwhile, above appellants armed with tangi and lathi came to the field and started scuffling with the husband of the informant and protested against the harvesting of paddy crops. It is further alleged that Chhatru Rana assaulted on head of the informant’s husband by tangi and Govind Rana assaulted by means of lathi. The informant’s husband died due to injury sustained by him in the said occurrence. The informant raised alarm then several villagers namely Ishwar Prajapati, Ramchandra and Most. Parwa Devi, who were working in nearby fields, arrived there, then accused persons fled away. The informant’s husband was brought to Barkagaon hospital where he died during treatment. It is further alleged that the accused persons have intentionally caused murder of the deceased due to land dispute.

4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above appellants for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.242 of 2003 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

5. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:-

P.W.1-Most. Purba Devi

P.W.2 Baleshwar Prasad

P.W.3-Most. Ishwari

P.W.4-Baleshwar Prajapati

P.W.5-Ram Chandra Prajapati

P.W.6-Dr. Pranay Mohan

P.W.7-Bindwa Devi(informant)

P.W.8-Mohan Bhuiyan

P.W.9- S.I. Sri Krishna Singh (I.O.)

6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:-

Ext.-Post-mortem report

Ext.2.-singature of the informant, Bindwa Devi on fardbayan

Ext.2/1.- Signature of Surendra Rana on fardbayan

Ext.2/2.-hand writing on fardbayan

Ext.2/3.-Endorsement on fardbayan by officer-in-charge

Ext.3-Formal FIR Ext.4-Inquest report.

7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. The accused, Govind Rana has also pleaded that he was not present in his house at the time of occurrence.

8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder in furtherance of the common intention, hence, convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC as stated above.

Submission on behalf of the Appellants:-

9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned judgm