The court established that actions taken in the heat of the moment, amid provocations rooted in prior disputes, do not equate to intent to kill under IPC.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP assisted by Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2021 passed in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 12 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 447 /326/307 IPC, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 (ten) years with default stipulation.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 11.09.2014 at 16.30 hours the appellant entered into the house of the complainant and started shouting and abusing him, and at that time Goutam Adhikari, another nephew of the complainant arrived there on hearing the shouting of the accused and asked the reason of his shouting and then the accused got furious and attacked upon Gautam Adhikari taking out a dagger (sharp knife) due to which said Gautam Adhikari sustained grievous bleeding injury on his abdomen and the accused was so furious that after striking once he was in desperate mode to strike repeatedly as to kill the victim. It was also alleged that the complainant, his relatives and others intervened into the issue and freed the victim from the clutch of the accused and thereafter shifted him to Bishalgarh Hospital wherefrom he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital.

4. The said complaint was registered as Bishramganj PS case no. 70 of 2014 under Sections 326 /307/506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated by the investigating officer, and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the convict appellant under Sections 447 /326/307/506 of the IPC. At the commencement of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charges against the convict appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution to establish the charges had adduced 10 (ten) witnesses. After closure of recording evidences, the convict appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations leveled against him by the prosecution witnesses but had adduced two witnesses on his behalf as DW-1 and DW-2. After hearing arguments and on examining the evidences and materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 447 /326/307 IPC. Hence, this appeal before this court.

6. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges leveled against the convict-appellant. Mr. Das, learned counsel without disputing the alleged incident had fairly submitted that there was a scuffling between the accused-appellant and the victim and in course of such scuffling, the accused-appellant had also sustained severe injuries on his person caused by the victim and his relatives. Mr. Das, had further argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated with the instant case because there was some disputes regarding land in between the accused and the family of the victim and more so, if there was any assault or attack, as alleged, the same occurred at the heat of the moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused-appellant to cause any such injury to the victim and finally, Mr. Das, learned counsel has argued that the prosecution witnesses are all the relatives of the victim, wh