A conviction for murder is unsustainable when evidence proves the act was committed during a sudden, unpremeditated quarrel in the heat of passion without unusual cruelty. Such cases fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part II rather than Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

Zafeer Ahmad, J.

1. Heard, Sri Dhananjay Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State. Perused the records.

2. The aforesaid jail appeal arises out of judgment and and order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pratapgarh in S.T. No. 248 of 2009 (State v. Dev Bahadur @ Matru Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2009, Police Station Antu, Sub-District Sadar, District Pratapgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) for life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/ and in case of non-payment of fine, an additional imprisonment of six months.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.03.2009, complainant Ram Bodh Yadav, s/o Sukhai Yadav, r/o village Shukulpur, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh submitted a written report stating therein that his daughter, Sunita, was married to Dev Bahadur @ Matru, s/o Nanda Yadav, r/o village Babu Ka Purwa Majra Umri, Police Station Antu, around fifteen years ago. On 27.03.2009 he received an information over telephone that his daughter, Sunita, had been murdered by her husband, Dev Bahadur @ Matru, with an axe at around 6:00 AM. On receiving such information he came to village Babu ka Purwa Majra Umri and saw that his daughter’s body was lying on a cot under a thatched roof.

4. On the basis of the written report, an F.I.R was registered under Section 302 I.P.C against the accused, Dev Bahadur @ Matru. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Upendra Yadav, who proceeded to the place of occurrence on the same day and conducted the inquest proceedings.

5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused.The accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Ram Bodh Yadav (PW-1), Shalu(PW-2), Dr. Alok Shukla (PW-3), Constable Raj Bahadur Yadav (PW-4), Constable Gaya Prasad Patel (PW-5), and S.I. Upendra Yadav (PW-6).

7. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, the Trial Court, in exercise of its powers, examined S.I. Jai Shankar Ram as Court Witness (CW-1). The defence, however, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of its case.

8. The following exhibits were produced and proved before the Trial Court:

9. The following material exhibits were produced and proved before the Trial Court:

10.The statement of the accused–appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied that he had ever been previously arrested in connection with any complaint lodged by the deceased, and that his arrest in present case and the recovery of the weapon were fabricated and wrong. He refused to have given any confessional statement to the police and alleged that the recovery of the T- shirt was also fabricated. He further stated that the FIR and GD are ante-timed and that the witnesses have given false testimony to frame him. The statement of the accused–appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he was not previously arrested on the basis of the complaint of the deceased and that his arrest and the recovery of the weapon were fabricated and wrong. He refused to have given any confessional statement to the police and alleged that