A conviction for murder requires proof of specific intent. Where death is caused during a sudden, unpremeditated quarrel without such intent, but with the knowledge that the act is likely to result in death, the conviction must be modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304.

JUDGMENT :

Zafeer Ahmad, J.

1. Heard, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the records.

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Balrampur in S.T. No. 145/2013 (State v. Kamal Prasad), arising out of Case Crime No. 356/2012, Police Station Pachperwa, District Balrampur whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short I.P.C) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo an additional one year of simple imprisonment.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.04.2012, the complainant Anil Kumar s/o Kamal Prasad r/o Semrahwa, Police Station Pachperwa, District Balrampur submitted a written report at Police Station Pachperwa stating therein that at about 2:30 PM, his mother, Indravati, was alone at home when his father, Kamal Prasad, entered the house and started quarrelling with her and, in a fit of rage, assaulted her with an axe, causing her death. It was further stated that the complainant, along with his friend Kunjan Chaudhary s/o Raja Ram, was present at some distance and when they heard cries from the house, immediately rushed towards the spot. It was further alleged that upon reaching there, they saw the accused Kamal Prasad fleeing from the house. It was also stated that when the complainant entered the house, he found his mother lying dead therein.

4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka- 1), a check FIR (Ext. Ka- 3) was registered under Section 302 IPC against accused-appellant,Kamal Nath. The investigation commenced on 19.04.2012, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka- 14) under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused-appellant. 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.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely: PW- 1 Anil Kumar, PW- 2 Kunjan Chaudhary, PW- 3 SI Anirudh Kumar Singh, PW- 4 Constable Akhilesh Yadav, PW- 5 Dr. Rajendra Kapoor, PW- 6 IO Dinesh Singh Yadav and PW-7 SHO Uma Shankar Yadav. 6. The following documents were produced and proved before the trial court:

7. The following material exhibits were produced and proved before the trial court:

8. Furthermore, the appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”), denied the prosecution allegations and asserted that he has been falsely implicated due to prior enmity and a conspiracy aimed at usurping his property.

9. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo an additional