The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden quarrel.

JUDGMENT :

Madan Pal Singh, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2016 (State Vs. Jumma Shah and two others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 1020 of 2016, under Sections 302 /34, 323/34 IPC , Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:

(i). The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of written report dated 31.05.2016 of the informant Parveen, wife of the deceased (Gulfam), resident of Anandpur @ Bhagwantapur, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, which has been exhibited as Ext. Ka-2, a first information report was lodged alleging therein that her chachera father-in-law Jumma Shah (appellant no.1) and Husnain Ali (appellant no.2) had put a hurdle in her pathway by putting a block of wood, due to which her way to move outside the house had been blocked. When her father-in-law Alam Shah had approached the appellants and asked them to remove the said wood from the pathway, the appellants, armed with lathi and danda started beating her father-in-law, and on his screaming, Gulfam the husband of the informant came there to rescue his father. The appellants attacked him also with lathi and danda, and gave him serious blows and due to which he became unconscious. He was brought to the Government Hospital by Ambulance and during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.

(ii). On the basis of chik FIR, Case Crime No. 1020 of 2016, under Sections 304, 323 IPC , Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit was registered against the appellants.

(iii). After the death of the deceased, panchayatnama was conducted, which was marked as Ext. Ka-1 and the body was sent for autopsy.

(iv). After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, under Sections 304, 323 IPC . The cognizance of the offence was taken on 24.08.2016 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 01.11.2018 for trial.

(v). That on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, vide order dated 17.09.2016, charges under Sections 323 /34 and 304/34 IPC were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Vide order dated 03.04.2017, the then Sessions Judge, Pilibhit modified the order dated 17.09.2016 whereby the charges were framed against the appellants under Section 304/34 IPC and amended the charges to read that they were under Section 302 /34 IPC . The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

(vi). The prosecution to prove its case had examined P.W.1-Alam Shah, P.W.2-Parveen (informant of the case), P.W.3-Head Constable Rajnath Singh, P.W.4-Afroz, P.W.5-Dr. Jagdish Prasad, P.W.6-Jahan Shah, P.W.7- Smt, Jannati and P.W.8-Sub Inspector Shriram Tamta (Investigating Officer of the case).

(vii). The prosecution in support of its case had also produced oral as well as documentary evidence, which were marked as Panchayatnama Ext. Ka-1, Written report Ext. Ka-2, G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3,