1. By Court.--This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution case, in short, as emerges from the written report is as follows :
Muneshwari Devi (the informant)-PW 1 gave a fardbayan on 26.3.1991 at about 9.15 a.m before the Police to the effect that at about 3,00 a.m in the night, a quarrel took place between her and her husband. Her husband became highly enraged and took her near the house of the appellant (which is contiguous and is intervened by a lane). The appellant intervened during which some scuffle and assault took place between her husband and the appellant and in a state of anger, the appellant took out a tangi from his house and gave blows on her husband causing injuries, even after, he fell down on the ground, due to which he died. The (sic) tried to intervene but the appellan pushed her. She raised India and Nirmalu Devi (PW 2), Lal Sahay Kherwar (neighbour of the informant) PW 3 came. She narrated them about the occurrence and took the dead body of the deceased inside her house.
3. On the basis of the said faredbeyan written report of the informant, Mahuadanr PS. Case No. 5 of 1999 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The appellant faced the trial and has been convicted as aforesaid.
4. Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the informant (PW 1) has changed her version from her first version. There is no reason why her first version should be disbelieved in which she had clearly stated that there was quarrel between her and her husband and when the appellant intervened, there was scuffle and assault between them and in a state of anger, the appellant took out a tangi and assaulted her husband. He further submitted that out of 4 incised injuries, the doctor found that injury No. 1 was fatal and the other injuries were on left shoulder, left forearm and left frontal region. He submitted that PW 2, the daughter of the deceased has also stated about the manner of occurrence as stated in the FIR. He therefore submitted that at best the appellant could be convicted u/s 304. IPC.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
6. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is difficult to hold that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. The appellant inflicted injuries in a state of anger and after some scuffle between him and the deceased, who was his brother-in-law (saarhu). It further appears that there was only one fatal injury on the deceased.
7. After carefully going through the materials on the record and hearing the parties, the order of conviction u/s 302. IPC is converted into one u/s 304, IPC and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone, le. about 12 years.
8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed in part with the modification in the conviction and sentence, as indicated above. The trial Court is directed to issue a modified conviction warrant, so that the appellant may be released from Jail, without any delay, if not wanted in connection with any other case(s).
