The court upheld the conviction under S.304 Part II IPC, affirming the appropriateness of the sentence reduction based on the nature of the crime.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case no. S.T. 11(GT / A) of 2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight year and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default to suffer farther rigorous imprisonment for three month for committing an offence punishable under S.304 Part II of the IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was launched on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Smt. Gouri Munda, stating inter alia that on 21.07.2015 at about 6.00 pm, there was an altercation between her son and the appellant and in - course of that altercation, the appellant had assaulted her son by inflicting fist, blows and kicks in his chest and belly and also pressed his throat in order to kill him. It has also been alleged that after assaulting her son, the appellant had fled away from the spot and thereafter as the condition of her son was deteriorating, he was taken to Amarpur hospital and, subsequently on the next day i.e. on 22.07.2015 he was shifted to Gomati District hospital, Udaipur where he had succumbed to his injuries.

4. Pursuant thereto, the Officer - in - Charge of Birganj police station had registered an FIR vide Birganj PS case no. 50 of 2015 under S.302 IPC and took up the matter for investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellant. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur wherein the case was registered as case No. S.T. 11 (GT / A) of 2016.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the appellant under S.302 IPC. During trial, the court had examined 15 witnesses altogether. The prosecution also had introduced 12 documentary evidences. After completion of the trial, the appellant was examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. when the appellant pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.

6. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and having considered the documentary evidences, the learned Sessions Judge found that the instant case was not a case of murder as defined under S.302 IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under S.304 Part - II of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 (eight) years.

7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to the evidences, particularly to the evidence of PW - 1 and PW - 13, who are claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Both the witnesses have stated that there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant out of consumption of liquor. Further, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has urged before this court for reduction of sentence of the appellant. This submission of learned counsel has also been supported by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State - respondent.

8. Mr. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly converted the charge under S.304 Part - II of the IPC from S.302 of the IPC.

9. I have gone through the records and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the deposition of the witnesses minutely and also have examined the documentary evidence. After scrutiny of the judgment, I find that the con