Point of Law: Section 299 of Indian Penal Code read as culpable homicide.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 149, 147, 299, 304 II, I, 300 (4) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Quarrel regarding partition - Murder offence - Culpable homicide - No intention to cause death - There was also quarrel between family regarding partition and Gautam and Subhash used to physically beat her – Role of appellants is clear from dying declaration and other records. [Para 16]
Finding of the Court: Death caused by accused was not premeditated, accused had no intention to cause death of deceased, injuries were though sufficient in ordinary course of nature to have caused death, accused had no intention to do away with deceased, hence case falls under Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of IPC – Court have come to irresistible conclusion that role of appellants is clear from dying declaration and other records –Court come to definite conclusion that death was due to septicaemia - Judgments cited by learned counsel for appellants would permit court to uphold finding which court conclusively hold that offence is not under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. but is culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304(I) I.P.C., sentence of all accused appellants is reduced to period they have already undergone.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 3.9.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.24, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2013 convicting accused-appellants under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months imprisonment.

2. Factual scenario as culled out from the record and the judgment of the Court below is that Neelu/ deceased was married to the son of Dev Saran and there was family dispute going on and on the date of incident, the deceased had gone to police station to report a complaint as soon as she returned back, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law caught hold her and she was set ablez by Gautam (brother-in-law). The deceased was married about 10 years before the incident and according to the F.I.R. husband of the deceased was not present at the home. There was also quarrel between the family regarding partition and Gautam and Subhash used to physically beat her. Dev Saran, father-in-law took her to the hospital, where she was treated from 19.5.2012 and she breath her last on 28.5.2012. After ten days of the incident, a dying declaration was recorded on 20.5.2012 and after one month i.e. on 20.6.2012 a First Information Report was lodged.

3. Investigation was moved into motion. After recording statements of various persons, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused-appellants. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom charge sheet was laid put the same before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the accused, framed charges.

4. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined 6 witnesses who are as follows :

1.	Hari Om Mishra	PW1
2.	Smt. Suman	PW2
3.	Rohit	PW3
4.	Dr. Naipal Singh	PW4
5.	Sudhir Kumar Soni	PW5
6.	Dhirendra Kumar Singh	PW6

5. In support of ocular version following documents were filed :

1.	F.I.R.	Ex.Ka.10
2.	Written Report	Ex.Ka.1
3.	Dying Declaration	Ex. Ka.7
4.	Post-mortem Report	Ex.Ka.2
5.	Panchayatnama	Ex.Ka.3
6.	Charge-sheet	Ex.Ka.9
7.	Site plan with index	Ex.Ka.8

6. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants.

7. Heard learned counsel for accused-appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for accused-appellants that the accused is in jail since long time. The incident occurred on 19.5.2012 at about 8:30 PM (night) and deceased died on 28.5.2012 i.e. after 12 days of the incident. The dying declaration was recorded on 20.5.2012 and it was stated that father-in-law namely, Dev Saran who had admitted the deceased to the hospital. The dying declaration was recorded by Tehsildar and no such dying declaration was given to doctor. Even if we go by the dying declaration, the husband was not present at home and brother-in-law, who is in jail had tried to abuse her. While going through the evidence of the witnesses, evidence of P.W.-1, who is father of the deceased has deposed on oath that when he reached at 8:30 PM his daughter conveyed brief fact to him and he has withstood the cross-examination of P.W.-2.

9. It is very clear that father-in-law did not give anything to the son-in-law of P.W.-1 i.e. husband of the deceased and there was always a dispute regarding room, which was being given to the deceased a