The court applied the reformative theory of punishment and the doctrine of proportionality in sentencing, considering the evidence and the absence of premeditation.

JUDGMENT :

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Fatehpur convicted the convict/appellant Puttan in Sessions Trial No. 781 of 2006 arising out of Crime No. 340 of 2006, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine to a tune of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months, feeling aggrieved of which the convict/appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The factual scenario of the case according to the FIR is that on 8.9.2006 at 10.30-11.00 am when the informant Sohan Lal, his brother Puttan and mother Bhagwanti Devi were present at home, accused Puttan started abusing his mother for some money matter and when the informant intervened, he assaulted his mother Bhagwanti Devi with intention of kill her by axe and she died on spot. The accused fled away. A written report Ex.Ka-3 narrating the aforesaid facts was given to police station Kotwali, Fatehpur by the informant Sohan Lal and FIR Ex.Ka-1 was lodged on 8.9.2006 and G.D. Ex.Ka-2 was also prepared. The investigation started and the Investigating Officer performed the inquest proceedings and inquest report Ex.Ka-7 and papers relating to the post mortem Ex.Ka-8, Ex.Ka-9, Ex.Ka-10 were also prepared, spot inspection was made by the I.O and site plan Ex.Ka-11 was prepared. Memo of recovery of plain and blood stained soil Ex.Ka-12 was also prepared. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and the murder weapon was recovered from his possession and recovery memo Ex.Ka-13 was also prepared. The site plan of the place of recovery Ex.Ka-4 was also prepared and after closing of the investigation charge sheet Ex.Ka-5 was submitted to the Court. Meanwhile on 9.9.2006 the autopsy of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. V.N. Srivastava, who prepared the autopsy report Ex.Ka-6 and found the following ante mortem injuries over the body of the deceased:

1. incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm brain deep, horizontally placed, 3 cm behind right ear with fracture of mastoid bone.

2. lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm brain deep just 4 cm above injury no.1 with fracture of under lining parietal bone of right side.

3. incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on right upper back horizontally placed along superior border of right scapula.

3. It was opined by the doctor that the death occurred due to coma as a result of ante mortem head injury.

4. The accused appeared before the Court and the case being triable exclusively by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence.

6. In oral evidence P.W.1 Sohan Lal, the informant, P.W.2 HCP. Narendra Nath Tripathi scribe of the FIR, P.W.3 Om Prakash Gautam scribe of tehrir, P.W.4 S.H.O Nand Kumar Singh 2nd I.O, P.W.5 Dr. V.N. Srivastava the witness of autopsy, P.W.6 S.I. Naki Haidar the first I.O. and P.W.7 Ranjit Kumar Singh witness of recovery of murder weapon have been examined.

7. To support the oral evidence, documentary evidence FIR Ex.Ka-1, G.D. Ex.Ka-2, written report Ex.Ka-3, site plan of place of recovery of murder weapon Ex.Ka-4, charge sheet Ex.Ka-5, autopsy report Ex.Ka-6, inquest report Ex.Ka-7, challan nash, photo nash and letter C.M.O Ex.Ka-8, Ex.Ka-9 and Ex.Ka-10 respectively, site plan Ex.Ka-11, memo of blood stained and plain soil Ex.Ka-12 and recovery memo of murder weapon Ex.Ka-13 have been produced. The murder weapon axe was also proved as material Ex.1. The F.S.L. Report 21 A is also available on record.

8. The incriminating circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution were put to the accused and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused took a plea of false implication and denied the truthfulness of the entire evidence adduced against him by the prosecuti