The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 IPC, particularly focusing on the accused's knowledge that the injury would cause death.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. As per order sheet dated 22.1.2021, Shri Ulljhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the private respondent has absented himself. Today when the hearing was started once again he has absented himself.

3. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 15.3.2012 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sidharth Nagar in Session Trial No.111 of 2010, titled State v. Sunil Kumar Pandey alias Sonu has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-(in default of payment of fine to further undergo 20 months Additional Imprisonment) and also under Section 323 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence/fine of Rs.500/-(in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month Additional Imprisonment), Police Station Etwa, District Sidharth Nagar.

4. The complainant's uncle Uday Pratap Pandey said in the complaint on 23.2.2010 when the complainant took his son Amarmani Pandey with his uncle Uday Pratap pandey for taking medicine. Chandrabhanu Pandey who is the cousin of the complainant demanded land without money from his uncle. Uncle was not willing to give the land, on the said date at about 2.30 pm, the accused merciless started beaten on uncle with wooden shaft of the seat (takhat), the uncle died on the spot. The prosecution filed the charge-sheet against the accused and as a case was triable by the court of session, the magistrate committed the court of session on 30.4.2010 charges under sections 302 and 307 were framed on the accused.

5. The prosecution examined several witnesses so as to bring home the charge framed against the accused as enumerated hereinbelow :

6. In support of ocular version following documents were filed by the prosecution which we have been taken through by both the counsels:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the offence was not committed or rather even if this court come to the conclusion not of the highest decree the accused was not armed hence contended that the medial evidence may also be perused by this court and the cumulative effect on the evidence on record be considered. The accused would be given benefit of lesser sentence under Section 304 and 307.

8. Per contra, the learned AGA has vehemently objected to the same that the accused had the knowledge and intention to do away with the deceased and it was not culpable homicide or murder simpliciter.

9. PW-1, Dr. Ram Kumar Verma, in his ocular version has stated the following injuries were found on the dead body of which he conducted the post mortem :

^^¼1½ QVk /kko 2 lsehŒ x 0-5 lsehŒ lj ds ck, rjQ-
¼2½ lj ds fiNs dh gM~Mh dà txg VwVh F