Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 330 (GAU)

Tanu Ram Kalita v. State of Assam

2013-05-22

I.A.ANSARI, P.K.MUSAHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae and Mr. K.A. Majumder, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State. This appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 42 (K)/02, corresponding to GR Case No. 59/97, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant on 22.1.97 at about 1.30 PM, stabbed to death one Manjuma Akhtari at a place by the side of 31 National High Way while she was coming from Kendukona bazaar and after committing the murder, the appellant fled away from the scene. A written Ejahar was lodged by one Syed Jaher Ali, brother of the deceased, on 12.1.97 with the Officer-In-Charge, Kamalpur Police Station on the said incident, which was received and registered as Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 13/97 under Section 302 IPC. 3. The I.O. of the case, Sri Rohini Buragohain, P.W. 11, visited the place of occurrence, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence, held the inquest and, got the post mortem examination report done and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as trial Court), framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, to which, on being read over and explained, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He, thus, stood the trial. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, examined as many as 11 witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the I.O. The appellant, after being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. declined to lead any evidence in his defence. He took a plea of complete denial of the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. He took a plea of complete denial of the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. In order to examine the correctness and/or otherwise of the findings/conclusion arrived at and also the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC, we propose to review the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses which are available on record. 5. First of all, let us peruse the evidence of P.W.-5, Md Syed Jaher Ali, brother of the deceased. He deposed that on the date of occurrence i.e. 22.1.97 he was present at home. Her deceased sister, Manjuma Akhtari, had been to Kendukona post office along with Nilima Nath (P.W.-2), Kalpana Nath (P.W.-1) and Bimala Nath (P.W.-7). At about 2 pm Nilima Nath (P.W.-2) came to his house and reported that the appellant dealt knife blow on her sister Manjuma Akhtari at Kendukona turning point. On hearing it, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw his sister lying on the road where many people had already gathered. He found a long knife and a pair of hawai sandal lying by the side of the dead body. He proved the FIR, Ext. 5, and his signature, Ext. 5(1), on it. Police immediately came to the place of occurrence and seized the said pair of hawai sandal and the knife including the sandal of his sister from the place of occurrence vide seizure list, Ext. 4. The dead body was identified by him. The police held inquest and prepared a report, Ext. 3, in his presence and he signed as a witness, marked Ext. 3(1). He saw several injuries on the dead body of her sister in a pool of blood. He also deposed that the appellant used to visit their house prior to the death of his sister. In cross-examination he stated that the plate of occurrence is only at a distance of half a mile from his residence. He went to the place of occurrence alone without being accompanied by anybody. He did not talk to the person assembled at the place of occurrence. The seized articles were not shown to him in the Court at the time of deposition. He went to the place of occurrence alone without being accompanied by anybody. He did not talk to the person assembled at the place of occurrence. The seized articles were not shown to him in the Court at the time of deposition. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit murder on his sister and that he gave false evidence. This witness is not an eye witness. 6. Kalpana Nath was examined as P.W. 1. Her evidence is that she knew both the deceased and the appellant. On the date of occurrence which took place at about 1.30 PM, she had been to Kendukona post office along with Manjuma, Nilima Nath and Bimala Nath for purchasing revenue stamp and they all had been to Kendukona Bazaar also for purchasing some articles. From Kendukona bazaar they were returning home on foot and while they reached the turning after crossing a line hotel, the appellant suddenly came from back side and asked the deceased Manjuma Akhtari what she had purchased from the bazaar. In reply the deceased asked the appellant why he was following her whenever she came out. Nilima Nath, P.W. 2, requested the appellant to go away from the place but he caught hold the deceased by her hairs and took out a 6/7- inch long knife. Seeing the knife in the hands of the appellant, they went away a little from the place. Then the appellant dealt a blow by the said knife on the left hand of Manjuma. It made her scream and fell down on the ground. While looking back she and her other friends saw the appellant running away from the place with the knife in his hand. They raised alarm and informed Manjuma's mother about the incident. On the very same day Manjuma died on the road. After 2/3 days of the incident the police took her to a Magistrate at Rangia and the said Magistrate recorded her statements. She proved the said statement, Ext. 1, and her signature, Ext. 1(1). On being cross-examined she stated that police also recorded her statement. She denied that she did not state before the I.O. that the occurrence took place a little away from the line hotel at Kendukona on the road. She proved the said statement, Ext. 1, and her signature, Ext. 1(1). On being cross-examined she stated that police also recorded her statement. She denied that she did not state before the I.O. that the occurrence took place a little away from the line hotel at Kendukona on the road. She also denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that accused did not ask the deceased as to what she had bought from the bazaar. She denied the further suggestion of the defence that she did not state before the police that the deceased, on being enquired, did not ask the accused why he was following her whenever she came out. So also she denied the suggestion that she did not state before the I.O. that the accused did not hold her by hairs and after seeing the knife in the hand of the accused they did not move away a little distance from the place of occurrence. At last she stated that she did not have any knowledge if, prior to the incident, any quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. This witness is an eye witness to the incident. 7. P.W. 2, Nilima Nath, deposed that she knew both the deceased and the appellant. Manjuma died on 22.1.97. On that day she went to Kendukona bazaar along with Kalpana Nath, P.W. 1 and Bimala Nath, P.W.-7, and the deceased Manjuma Akhtari and while they were returning home from bazaar and when they reached a turning of the road after passing a line hotel, the accused, who was following them, suddenly dealt a knife blow on the face and chest of the deceased. Seeing the act of assault on the deceased by the accused with a knife, they screamed and came to their village and informed the brother of the deceased about the incident. Manjuma died on the same day as a result of injuries she sustained. She also stated that she made statements, Ext. 2, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Rangia on which she put her signature, Ext. 2(1). P.W.-2 is an eye witness to the said incident. 8. P.W.-3, Md Syed Wahidul Rahman, is the brother of the deceased. He stated that he knew the accused. His sister Manjuma died on 22.1.97. He was in his house on that day. 2, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Rangia on which she put her signature, Ext. 2(1). P.W.-2 is an eye witness to the said incident. 8. P.W.-3, Md Syed Wahidul Rahman, is the brother of the deceased. He stated that he knew the accused. His sister Manjuma died on 22.1.97. He was in his house on that day. Nilima Nath, P.W.-2, came to his residence and informed him that the accused Tanuram Kalita assaulted his sister on the road at a little distance away from a line hotel. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found his sister lying dead on the ground in a pool of blood. Having seen her in such state he became senseless. He deposed that his elder brother lodged the FIR and the police visited the place of occurrence. In cross examination he stated that his elder brother, Khairul Ali, was a classmate of the accused who seldom used to visit their house. He also stated that the accused was debarred from visiting their house. On arrival at the place of occurrence he noticed the injuries sustained by her deceased sister. It may be noted here that the learned trial court put a question to this witness as to why the accused was debarred from visiting their house. In reply he stated that as there are some girls in their house they apprehended that "there might be some incident" due to visit of the appellant. 9. P.W.-4, Syed Mohsin Ali, deposed that he knows both the accused and the deceased. Having come to know about the incident he came to the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying with several stab injuries on her person. He also found a dagger and a pair of hawai sandal near the dead body. The police had already arrived before he reached the place of occurrence. He was told by the persons present at the place of occurrence that the accused Tanuram Kalita murdered the deceased. The police prepared the inquest report, Ext. 3, in his presence and he put his signature, Ext. 3(1), on it. Police also seized a dagger and two pairs of hawai sandal vide Ext. 4 on which he put his signature, Ext. 4(1). He is not an eye witness. 10. The police prepared the inquest report, Ext. 3, in his presence and he put his signature, Ext. 3(1), on it. Police also seized a dagger and two pairs of hawai sandal vide Ext. 4 on which he put his signature, Ext. 4(1). He is not an eye witness. 10. P.W.-6 (Md Harej Ali), P.W-8 (Syed Farid Ali) and P.W.-9 (Saifuddin Ahmed) are all reported witnesses who came to the place of occurrence after hearing about the incident There is nothing specific or significant in their evidence except that they saw the dead body of the deceased lying at the place of occurrence and they knew both the deceased and the accused. 11. Smti Bimala Nath was examined as P.W.-7. She deposed that she knew both the deceased and the appellant. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 22.1.97, she came to Kendukona post office along with the deceased and her friends Kalpana Nath and Nilima Nath. While they were together returning and crossed a road-side (line) hotel, the appellant suddenly came from the back side and gave a knife blow on Manjuma. They all shouted out of fear and ran away from the place of occurrence and informed the house of the victim about the incident. She is an eye witness to the incident. 12. P.W. 10, Dr. Pratap Ch. Sarmah, is the medical officer who, on police requisition, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the victim on 23.1.97 i.e. on the next day of the date of occurrence at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. He deposed that he found as many as 8 (eight) cut wounds as well as 7(seven) stab wounds on the dead body of the victim which were inflicted on the facial regions, sculf and chest. In his opinion cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the stab and the cut injuries described in the PM report, Ext. 6, and also wound on the chest involving lung (injury No. 14) which was "lethal" in nature. According to the medical officer, all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by sharp pointed weapon which were homicidal in nature. Further, in his opinion, the injuries described in the post mortem report could be caused by a weapon like dagger and the said injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the medical officer, all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by sharp pointed weapon which were homicidal in nature. Further, in his opinion, the injuries described in the post mortem report could be caused by a weapon like dagger and the said injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved the said post mortem report, Ext. 6, and his signature, Ext. 6(1), on it. 13. The I.O. of the case, Sri Rohini Buragohain was examined as P.W.-11. He stated that during investigation he visited the place of occurrence, drew a sketch map, held inquest on the dead body, recovered and seized two old pairs of chappals and a dagger near the dead body in presence of witnesses and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital at Guwahati. He also examined the witnesses, collected the post mortem report and laid the charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, he further deposed, that accused absconded after the occurrence and he could arrest him only on 21.2.97. In cross-examination he stated that he seized a blood stained dagger from the place of occurrence but it was not sent to FSL. He also stated that the wearing clothes of the deceased were not seized by him. 14. The appellant, as stated above, adduced no evidence in his defence. He has taken a stand of innocence and complete denial of the charge. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had taken the same stand. He, however, admitted in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he knew the deceased and also the incident of her murder. 15. We have noticed from the evidence on record that there were at least 3 girls who accompanied the victim while she went to Kendukona post office and was returning home with them after marketing. Those 3 girls have been examined as P.W. 1, 2 and 7. The incident took place in presence of P.W. 1, 2 and 7. They witnessed the occurrence in their own eyes. The appellant was coming behind Manjuma and her said 3 friends, P.W. 1, 2 and 7. In fact, the appellant was following them and at a certain moment, he talked to Manjuma. He enquired what things she had purchased from the market. They witnessed the occurrence in their own eyes. The appellant was coming behind Manjuma and her said 3 friends, P.W. 1, 2 and 7. In fact, the appellant was following them and at a certain moment, he talked to Manjuma. He enquired what things she had purchased from the market. The deceased, without answering his question, asked the appellant why he had been following her whenever she comes out. The appellant immediately reacted and gave the knife blows on the deceased. P.W. 1, 2 and 7 corroborately stated that it was the appellant who dealt the knife blows on the deceased and she succumbed to the injuries she received. 16. The fact that the deceased was in the company of P.W. 1, 2 and 7 at the relevant point of time has been proved by P.W.-5 (informant) who stated that his deceased sister had been to Kendukona Post Office along with P.W. 1, 2 and 7 on the date of occurrence. So the presence of P.W. 1, 2 and 7 at the place of occurrence is not in question. The defence also did not question their presence at the place of occurrence inasmuch as no suggestion was put to these witnesses that they did not accompany the deceased and they were not present at the place of occurrence. 17. The fact that the deceased was stabbed to death at the place of occurrence in presence of P.W. 1, 2 and 7 cannot be questioned inasmuch as P.W.-5 stated in his deposition that Nilima Nath, P.W.-2, came to his residence and reported him about the incident. The informant, P.W.-5, being the brother of the deceased, immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found his sister lying in an injured state on the road. P.W.-3, another brother of the deceased, also rushed to the place of occurrence and found her sister lying on the ground in a pool of blood. The evidence of P.W. 3 and 5 is supported by the evidence of independent witnesses P.W. 4, 6 and 8 who came to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying with several stab injuries on her person. As per evidence of P.W. 4, 6 and 8, some people had already gathered at the place of occurrence. Among them P.W. 6 even stated that he saw some people chasing the accused Tanuram Kalita but he could not be apprehended. As per evidence of P.W. 4, 6 and 8, some people had already gathered at the place of occurrence. Among them P.W. 6 even stated that he saw some people chasing the accused Tanuram Kalita but he could not be apprehended. The evidence of P.W. 6 is that he did not see the actual act of assault by a knife on the deceased but he saw the appellant running away from the scene and being chased by some people. The evidence of P.W.-6 is corroborated by the evidence of eye witness P.W.-1, who stated that the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with a knife in hand and when she raised alarm people from the Kendukona Bazaar came to the place of occurrence. This piece of evidence of P.W.-1 and 6 establishes the fact that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and he fled away from there and he was chased by some people. The above evidence sufficiently proved the fact that the appellant met the victim and her friends on the road and he fled the place of occurrence just after the incident. Here the conduct and behaviour of the appellant is found quite unnatural. Question arises why he ran away when a girl known to her sustained injuries and lying on the ground. As a normal human being he should have remained at the place of occurrence and helped the injured girl to save her life. But he had not done so as per evidence of P.W.-1, 2, 6 and 7. The conduct of the appellant was quite unnatural and it created doubt in the minds of the people gathered at the place of occurrence. 18. The relevant question in this case is whether the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 7 could be treated as cogent and reliable for convicting the accused person in the said facts and circumstances of the case. From the evidence on record it is found that the deceased and the appellant belong to same locality. The eye witnesses, P.W. 1, 2 & 7, also belong to same locality. They know each other very well. The incident took place in the broad daylight at about 1.30 PM. The possibility of their meeting near Kendukona market at the said hour of the day cannot be ruled out. Their meeting in the said manner is not an unusual event. They know each other very well. The incident took place in the broad daylight at about 1.30 PM. The possibility of their meeting near Kendukona market at the said hour of the day cannot be ruled out. Their meeting in the said manner is not an unusual event. There is, of course, no evidence that the appellant followed the deceased and her friends with bad intention from Kendukona bazaar while they were returning home. 19. The fact that the deceased succumbed to her injuries has also been proved by the medical evidence. The deceased received as many as 15 cut and stab injuries by sharp weapon and the said injuries fit in the injuries that might be caused by a sharp dagger or knife. As per the evidence of eye witnesses P.W. 1, 2 and 7, the appellant struck blows, on the person of the deceased by a knife carried by him. Further, as per evidence of the said girls (P.W. 1, 2 & 7), just before or at the time of occurrence, they did not come across any other person(s) on the road carrying sharp weapon or dagger. From the manner of cross-examination of the defence counsel, it is discernible that no plea was taken by the appellant that the deceased was stabbed by some other person and not by the appellant inasmuch as there is no suggestion put to the eye witnesses, P.W. 1, 2 and 7, to that effect. For want of such suggestion, we are of the view that there is no scope for taking a view that some other person, other than the appellant, struck the knife blows and, therefore, it stands proved that it was none else than the appellant who struck the knife blows causing death to the deceased. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this is the only possible view or conclusion that can be taken by the court. There is no other possible view that can be taken by the court for the purpose of holding the appellant not guilty. We are, therefore, of the view that learned trial court correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and arrived at a correct conclusion in holding the appellant guilty of culpable homicide within the meaning of Section 299 IPC. We are, thus far, fully in agreement with the learned trial court. We are, therefore, of the view that learned trial court correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and arrived at a correct conclusion in holding the appellant guilty of culpable homicide within the meaning of Section 299 IPC. We are, thus far, fully in agreement with the learned trial court. Beyond this finding, what is striking the judicial mind of ours is as to whether the culpable homicide committed by the appellant is not amounting to murder so as to make him liable to punishment under part I or part II of Section 304 IPC. To answer this question, it would require further appreciation and consideration of the evidence on record. 20. We have taken into consideration the proved fact that the appellant was in possession of a sharp knife and that by the said knife he dealt the blow on the deceased causing multiple injuries and death to her. Why was he carrying a knife when he intended to meet and talk to Manjuma Akhtari? Did he follow her with intention to kill? These are difficult questions to answer inasmuch as there is no evidence that he ever intended or expressed his intention before anybody to kill her in the event he receives no response from Manjuma. We have found in the evidence of P.W.-3, younger brother of Manjuma that the appellant was a classmate of his brother Khairul Ali and, being the classmate of Khairul Ali, the appellant used to visit their residence. The visit of the appellant was disliked by the family members of deceased Manjuma and so he was debarred from visiting their house. The family members of Manjuma apprehended that the frequent visit of appellant to their residence might create some problem. If the evidence of eye witness P.W.-1 is to be believed, Manjuma herself did not like the appellant and that is why on the date of occurrence, when he followed and enquired her what articles she had purchased from the bazaar, she questioned the appellant why he was following her whenever she comes out. The appellant, naturally got disappointed at the attitude of Manjuma and it aroused his singer. He might have been equally felt ashamed of and hurt in his heart by the conduct of the deceased. This was extremely unexpected for him and it made him extremely angry and frustrated. The appellant, naturally got disappointed at the attitude of Manjuma and it aroused his singer. He might have been equally felt ashamed of and hurt in his heart by the conduct of the deceased. This was extremely unexpected for him and it made him extremely angry and frustrated. He lost control over his mind and resorted to extreme act of stabbing Manjuma by a sharp knife. 21. Now a question arises whether the appellant was provoked by the negative attitude of Manjuma who expressed her disliking him. The plain dictionary meaning of 'provoke' is to excite or call into action or to call out challenge or to excite with anger. Normally in criminal law or trial the word provoke implies calling into action or challenge. The appellant was denounced or rejected by Manjuma and it enraged him much and, may be, due to frustration, he lost his good sense and took the extreme act of ending the life of Manjuma by striking dagger blows. Then is, no doubt, that there was a ground for the appellant to be agitated in great anger due to the unfriendly behaviour and attitude of Manjuma. He was, thus, provoked. The ultimate question is whether such provocation in the said situation, would come under the purview of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. 22. A person may be provoked by a challenge put up by an opponent. The challenge may be physical, with or without using any weapon. It may also be oral by way of calling names or abusing or using slang or contemptuous words, remonstration etc. The said exception No. 1 of Section 300 IPC does not specify or say that there should be provocation by physical action only. What is required is a grave and sudden provocation that must deprive a person of the power of self-control. From the evidence on record it is found that the appellant, without any ill motive or foul gesture, just enquired from Manjuma what she bought from the bazaar, but she reacted in a very unfriendly manner and asked him why he was following her. There was naturally a sudden provocation from the deceased inasmuch as such attitude was not expected from her. The said provocation appears to be not very serious but the appellant took it very seriously. There was naturally a sudden provocation from the deceased inasmuch as such attitude was not expected from her. The said provocation appears to be not very serious but the appellant took it very seriously. As a young man, although there is no prove that he offered love or wanted to develop a relationship with the deceased, it can be inferred that he indeed wanted to grow a relationship with her looking at the evidence of her brother, P.W.-3, who deposed that the appellant seldom visited their residence and he was debarred from visiting their house. This evidence proves that the family members of the deceased did not like the appellant. His mind, therefore, remained disturbed and when he could not win the heart of Manjuma and as soon as she also expressed her disliking in presence of her friends, he got further enraged and provoked. The aforesaid sudden provocation turned grave and it was quite possible that in such situation, the appellant lost his power of self-control and made him to strike several knife blows on the person of Manjuma who admittedly, as per medical evidence, succumbed to her injuries. 23. The appellant led no evidence to prove that he dealt the knife blows in the fit of disturbed mental state and he was deprived of power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation he received from Manjuma. We are inclined to believe that in the aforesaid situation and circumstances, he gave the knife blows on Manjum. This leaves us with yet another vital question as to whether the appellant had intention of causing such bodily injuries on Manjuma which was likely to cause death or he had knowledge that he was, by such act, likely to cause death to her. The prosecution has projected the appellant as a love seeker of Manjuma and he was following her while she was returning from Kendukona bazaar along with P.W.-1, 2 and 7. As a love seeker the appellant, at the first instance, had no intention of causing death or causing such bodily injuries as was likely to cause death but as he lost the power of self-control by the aforesaid grave and sudden provocation he gave the knife blows knowing fully well that such act of physical assault would cause death to the victim. The prosecution led no evidence proving the existence of requisite intention of the appellant to kill the deceased but the evidence on record, has proved that he had the knowledge that the multiple knife blows would surely cause death in the ordinary course of nature attracting offence of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 IPC punishable under Section 304 Pt-II. In this context, it may be apt to refer to Tholan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 133 . That was a case where the accused, who gave a single knife blow on the chest of the deceased on the spur of the moment, which was ordinarily sufficient to cause death, was convicted under Section 304 Pt-II and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment inasmuch as the Apex Court found that the accused, who wielded a weapon like a knife, could be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely to cause death. The accused in the said case dealt only one knife blow. But in the present case, the appellant dealt as many as 7 blows by a knife with knowledge that he was likely to cause injuries which would cause the death of the girl. We are of the considered view that the appellant is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC as his act is attributable to exception 1 of Section 300 IPC and accordingly we set aside the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC passed by the learned trial Court which is under challenge in this appeal and convict him under Section 304 Pt-II IPC. As regards the sentence, we are of the view that as the appellant struck several knife blows on the victim with the knowledge that such knife assaults would cause death to the deceased, justice would not be met if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years only. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant should get heavier punishment and it is considered fit and proper to punish him with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, which would be commensurate with the gravity of offence committed and meet the ends of justice. The appellant, therefore, stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. The appellant, therefore, stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3(three) months. 24. The appeal stands partly allowed with modification in the conviction and sentence as indicated above. The appellant who is in jail shall serve out the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with benefit of set off as provided under the existing law. The learned Amicus Curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the legal assistance rendered to this Court. Return the LCRs. Appeal Partly Allowed