Court altered conviction from murder to manslaughter under Section 304-I, emphasizing spontaneity and lack of premeditation in rural contexts.

Judgment :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th October, 2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.60/68 of 2010 arising out of G.R Case No.43 of 2010, corresponding to Badmal P.S. Case No.8 of 2010 of the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Jharsuguda.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for commission of the said offence.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 12.01.2010 in between 6.00 am to 6.30 am, when the wife of the elder brother of the accused had been to the tube-well situated near the Club House of the village to fetch water, the accused assaulted her by means of an iron pipe causing severe head injury leading to her fall on the ground. The villagers, hearing the cry of the deceased, arrived at the spot and detained the accused in the Club House. Thereafter, the injured, while being taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Jharsuguda in an ambulance, she succumbed to the injuries on the way.

On getting the information about the above incident, the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.17), proceeded to the spot where the Informant presented the written report to him. He (P.W.17) treated the same as FIR (Ext.1) and took the up the investigation. On return to the P.S., he (P.W.17) registered the criminal case in the absence of the Inspector-in-Charge of the P.S.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.- P.W.17) examined the informant (P.W.5). He (P.W.17), having visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.2). The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.17) seized one iron pipe from the house of the accused under seizure list (Ext.11). The wearing apparels of the accused were also seizeds under seizure list (Ext.12). The seized incriminating article were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of the investigation the I.O (P.W.17) submitted the Final Form placing this accused to face the trial under section 302 of the IPC .

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the said offence against the accused.

5. In the trial, the prosecution examined in total seventeen witnesses. Out of them, as already stated, P.W.5 is the informant. P.W.1 is the ambulance driver, who had carried the deceased to the Hospital. P.Ws.4, 6 & 7 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.W.8 is a post occurrence witness whereas P.Ws.10 & 16 are the witnesses to the seizure. The Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is P.W.15. The I.O. at the end has come to the witness box as P.W.17.

6. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved several documents which have been admitted in the evidence and marked Ext. 1 to 20. Important of those are the F.I.R. (Ext.1), Inquest Report (Ext.2) and Postmortem Examination Report (Ext.7). The spot visit report of the scientific officer had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.15.

7. The accused has taken the plea of complete denial and false implica