Modification of sentence under Section 304 IPC can be justified based on the time elapsed since the incident and the appellant's personal circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by two appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 29.07.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 54/12 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 645 of 1992) convicting them for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years.

2. The prosecution report in the present case narrates that on 17.06.1992, P.W.9 a Gramarakhi and P.W.10, a Police constable were deputed to village-Haladia to direct the persons complained against them to meet the Police Officer before whom P.W.1 lodged a complaint. On receipt of information that P.W.1 had complained against them, the accused persons held a meeting in a Thakurani Mandap of the village where they decided to take revenge on P.W.1. P.W.2, came to the house of P.W.1 and told the occupants of the house about the meeting. P.W.1 apprehended danger and he escaped from the house through the back door and took shelter in the house of his sister. Thereafter, all the accused persons entered inside the house of P.W.1, and searched him. Kanchan (wife of P.W.1) was throttled to death. She was carried by 6 of the accused person to the Cremation ground, which is at a distance of about 500 cubits from the house of the P.W.1. P.W.2, and P.W.5 (father of p.w.2) and P.W.8 (mother of P.W.2) who are neighbour of P.W.1 were assaulted by five of the accused persons. Sometime thereafter, Jagabandhu Parida (P.W.3-son of P.W.1) met P.W.1 and told him that the accused persons surrounded the house, assaulted parents of P.W.1 and carried Kanchan to the village burrial ground. He further stated that Kuna Das and Laxmidhar Patra had caused death of Kanchan by throttling her and that Bhaskar Patra (P.W.5), and Saraswati Patra (P.W.8) had been assaulted. On receipt of the information from P.W.3, P.W.1 came to village burrial ground, where he found his wife-Kanchan was lying dead. P.W.1 came to Ghanteswar Police Out Post and submitted a written report-Ext-1 before P.W.12, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police attached to Ghanteswar Police Out Post.

3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations FIR was registered, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial after charges were framed.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited as many as sixteen documents. P.W.1 is the informant, whereas P.W.2 was a witness who informed regarding the motive of the accused persons to commit the offence and regarding the decision taken in the meeting prior to the occurrence. P.W.3, is the son of the informant and an eye-witness to the assault. P.W.4 is the father of P.W.1 (informant), who stated to have received on his person being assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.5 is a co-villager and father of P.W.2. P.W.6 was the doctor of Tihidi P.H.C., who examined the injured persons. P.W.9 was a Gramarakhi, whereas P.W.10 was a constable. P.W.12 was the A.S.I. of Police of Ghanteswar Police Out Post who took preliminary investigation of the case, whereas P.W.11 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bansada Police Station who took charge of investigation from the A.S.I. and submitted charge sheet after completion of investigation.

5. The learned trial court after analysing the entire evidence on record individually accorded the finding regarding the guilty of the accused persons and passed a very detailed and exhaustive judgment. Paragra