The court modified the conviction from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II) due to lack of intent.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 respectively passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2002, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 73 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Navneet Sahaya, Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned APP for the State.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter-Sunita Kumari was married on 28.04.2002 in presence of several villagers and relatives. It is alleged that in the night of 01.05.2002, present appellants namely Bhuneshwar Rabidas and Rajendra Rabidas came to the house of informant- Baldeo Rabidas and complained as to why, they were not given Feast. The informant consoled them assuring to organize Feast later, but they became furious and went to their house and again Rajendra Rabidas armed with iron rod and Bhuneshwar Rabidas armed with Lathi accompanied with his wife Jubli Devi and daughter Rajkumari Devi came to the house of the informant. It is further alleged that Rajendra Rabidas hit on the head of Horil Rabids (brother of the informant) by iron rod. In the meantime, Surendra Rabidas came to rescue him, then, he was also assaulted by iron rod. It is further alleged that accused Bhuneshwar Rabidas has assaulted the informant by Lathi and when Yubraj Das came to rescue them, then, he was also assaulted by Lathi. Hearing alarm of injured persons, several villagers assembled, then, accused persons fled away. It is alleged that in the night, due to want of communication facility, report could not be lodged, as such, written report was lodged on 02.05.2002 at Jamua Police Station Accordingly, Jamua P.S. Case No. 73 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 504, 506 and 307/34 of the IPC against the above named accused persons. Later on, in the course of investigation, Horil Rabidas died. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 302, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC. Investigation against female accused persons kept continued.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 280 of 2002 was registered. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

5. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 Saro Devi

P.W.-2 Most. Kalwa Devi

P.W.-3 Surendra Rabidas (injured witness)

P.W.-4 Yubraj Rabidas (injured witness)

P.W.-5 Baldeo Rabidas (Informant)

P.W.-6 Dr. Rajendra Choudhary

P.W.-7 Dr.Kamleshwar Prasad

P.W.-8 Bhutak Rabidas

P.W.-9 Khemchand Das

P.W.-10 Radhika Devi

P.W.-11 Shyamdeo Singh (The investigating Officer)

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

Ext.1 & 1/A- Injury Report of Baldeo Rabidas and Surendra Rabidas

Ext.2- Post-Mortem Report of Deceased

Ext.3-Formal F.I.R.

Ext.4- Endorsement on the written Report

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has extraneously argued that admittedly genesis of occurrence lies in not giving Feast to the appellants on the occasion of marriage of daughter of the informant but there was no intention or knowledge as required to constitute the offence under Section 302 IPC, rath