The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.

GUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana (learned Judge of the trial court), in Sessions Trial No.79/2003.

2. By the said judgment impugned in the appeal, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are as under:

Santosh Sudhakar Tayade (the deceased) was auto-rickshaw driver. On 26.4.2003, at about 5:30 to 6:00 pm, there was altercation of words between him and the accused on account of act of the accused while shaking tobacco. The dust entered into the eyes of the deceased. During altercation of the words, the deceased was assaulted by the accused due to which he fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. As per the allegations, the accused assaulted the deceased by fists and kick blows. On the basis the said report, the police registered the crime against the accused and other two co-accused.

4. After registration of the crime, wheels of investigation started rotating. During the investigation, the investigating officer has drawn inquest panchanama, spot panchanama, seized clothes of the deceased as well as the accused, collected postmortem notes, forwarded incriminating articles to Chemical Analyzer, and after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused.

5. As the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge vide Exh.13. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses, they are as follows:

7. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on the report Exh.22, FIR Exh.23, postmortem notes Exh.34, inquest panchanama Exh.40, spot panchanama Exh.42, requisition to CA Exh.44, and CA Report Exh.45.

8. On the basis of the above evidence, the prosecution claimed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All incriminating evidence is put to the accused in order to obtain his explanation regarding evidence appearing against him by recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC.

9. Learned Judge of the trial court appreciated the evidence and held that the accused has caused death of the deceased and thereby held him guilty of the offence under Sectoin 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as the aforesaid.

10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the accused on the ground that the entire evidence reflects that during sudden fight and sudden quarrel, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. There was no intention to cause death of the deceased. The subsequent act of the accused was not taken into consideration. The act of the accused covers under Exception-4 to Sectoin 300 of the IPC and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Heard learned counsel Shri Aadil Anwar for t