Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 956 (GAU)

Ranjit Ghatwal v. State of Assam

2014-10-31

K.SREEDHAR RAO, M.R.PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No. 120(JJ) of 2009, the accused/appellant, namely, Sri Ranjit Ghatwal, who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) moths, setting off the sentence against him for the period of his detention in connection with the case has filed this appeal from jail. The case of the prosecution is that at about 11:00 a.m. on 04.06.2009 PW1, Smti. Anita Mosahor, lodged a FIR in the Pulibor Police Station stating that at about 9:05 p.m. of the previous night, i.e., 03.06.2009, Sri Ranjit Ghatwal, son of Late Phuchand Ghatwal, resident of Purana Line of Mohbandha Tea Estate entered their house and while stealing a bucket that was in their verandah, the dog of their house started barking, then they came out and saw Ranjit was taking away the bucket, immediately they followed him and when asked why he has taken the bucket, he ran inside his house, took out an axe and hit her husband in his head and he fell down and when she raised alarm, neighbours came and taken him to hospital. In the FIR it was further mentioned that though hospital authority initially refused to admit him as it is a police case but seeing his deteriorating condition and heavy loss of blood, he was given medical treatment and immediately she informed the police station. 2. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR Pulibor P.S. Case No. 42/2009 under Sections 447/379/324 of the Indian penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 484/2009 was registered and after the death of the deceased, Section 302 IPC was added. The case was investigated by P.W. 10, Mohammad Hussain, SI of Police in the course of the investigation inquest was held on the dead body which was sent for post mortem examination statement of person acquainted with the crime alleged was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and at the conclusion of the investigation Charge-Sheet was submitted on 19.09.2009 vide Charge Sheet No. 61/2009 against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC. The offence under Section 302 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Junior Magistrate First Class, Jorhat vide order dated 17.11.2009 committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Jorhat which was accordingly registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 120 (JJ) of 2009. 3. Learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat by his order dated 26.11.2009 framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant, which was read over and explained to him, to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The accused appellant being unable to engage any lawyer of his own, the learned Sessions Court, Jorhat appointed an Advocate as State Defence Counsel to defend him. 4. In the trial, 10 (ten) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. Further, learned Trial Court recorded accused/appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, above named accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal. 5. To begin with, let us observe the evidence tendered by the prosecution in the case. 6. P.W. 1, Smti. Anita Mosahor is the informant and wife of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the deceased after dinner went out and after some time on hearing noise & yelling from the side of accused/appellant's house; she went out and found her husband lying injured in the courtyard his house. At that time she found her husband was unable to speak and that the accused was inside his house and did not come out. Noticing her husband in such a state, she raised alarm and then P.W. 2 came to the place of occurrence, took him to the garden hospital and on the next day, he was taken to the civil hospital. It was further stated that while in the garden hospital, though she called her husband, but he was unable to speak. Thereafter, from civil hospital her husband was taken to Dibrugarh and even at Dibrugarh also he could not talk. She stated that her husband got injury on back side of his head and after the incident, where about of the accused/appellant was not known to her, but she later heard that it is the accused, who inflicted injury on her husband by an axe and that the injury in her husband's head was that of an axe. She stated that her husband got injury on back side of his head and after the incident, where about of the accused/appellant was not known to her, but she later heard that it is the accused, who inflicted injury on her husband by an axe and that the injury in her husband's head was that of an axe. She also stated that her husband did not take anything in his hand while he left his house and her husband use to visit accused/appellant's house everyday and the accused/appellant also use to visit their house regularly. She also stated that on the date of the incident a bucket was stolen from their house and it was found after her husband was injured; but later she said that she found the bucket in the orchard of the accused. In cross evidence, P.W. 1 stated that she lodged the FIR of the case, but it was written by a person in the police station, whose name she does not know and also does not know the date when the FIR of the case was lodged. She stated that did not see her husband when he went out and also did not see as to how her husband got injury. Further when she came out, she did not find any one in the outside except her husband and also stated that she did not see the accused in the place of occurrence. 7. P.W. 2, Sibu Mosahor, brother of the deceased, in his evidence, stated that he and his deceased brother use to live separately and on hearing alarm raised by his sister-in-law (P.W. 1) that the accused/appellant hit his brother, he came out, found his brother lying in the courtyard of the accused/appellant in an unconscious state with cut injury on the rear side of his head and when they came to the place of occurrence, the accused did not come out from his house. He further stated that his brother was taken to the garden hospital, then to the civil hospital and thereafter to Dibrugarh, where he died. He also stated between his house and the accused's, there is another house and at garden hospital and in civil hospital, when his brother could talk, he stated that it is the accused/appellant who hit him. He further stated that his brother was taken to the garden hospital, then to the civil hospital and thereafter to Dibrugarh, where he died. He also stated between his house and the accused's, there is another house and at garden hospital and in civil hospital, when his brother could talk, he stated that it is the accused/appellant who hit him. In cross evidence, P.W. 2 stated that at the place of occurrence he did not see any one except his brother and sister-in-law and not even the accused. He also stated that police recorded his statement on the date of the incident in the police station itself and that the accused appellant is deceased's own brother-in-law. 8. P.W. 3, Muhiram Ghatwal, who is a seizure witness in his evidence stated that he heard from people that accused appellant killed the deceased and for investigation of the case police came to the house of the accused/appellant and seized an axe. In cross evidence, the P.W. 3 stated that he does not know that the accused is the brother-in-law of deceased Kangru and also not aware how he was killed and where he got injury. 9. P.W. 4 Durgeswar Tanti, in his evidence stated that on the date of the incident, at night, on hearing commotion, he came out from his house and saw that the deceased was hit, saw injuries in his body, but did not see who hit him. He stated that it is Bhaity, deceased's son, who told him that the accused appellant hit Kangru and when he asked Kangru, he replied that it is the accused/appellant who had hit him. He also stated that on the information of Kangru's wife Police came and seized an axe and later Kangru expired. In cross evidence, P.W. 4 stated that he does not know from where police brought the axe and he gave his signature in the seizure list as police asked him to sign, but police did not read over the contents of the seizure list to him. He found Bhaity (PW-5), wife of the decease, small children and Sibu when he reached the place of occurrence around 09.00 at night and stated that except 4 to 5 persons, there were none in the place. He found Bhaity (PW-5), wife of the decease, small children and Sibu when he reached the place of occurrence around 09.00 at night and stated that except 4 to 5 persons, there were none in the place. He also stated that Police enquired him on the same day and he did not state before police that Bhaity or the deceased told him that the accused/appellant hit the deceased as he did not see the incident of his own and tendered evidence as informed by the family members of the deceased. 10. P.W. 5, Bhaity Mosahor, son of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on the date of the incident, after dinner he was preparing to sleep and his father after dinner went out and at that time the accused appellant came and took away the bucket of their house. His father went to the house of the accused/appellant in search of the same, the accused appellant hit his father and then his father raised alarm. Thereafter his mother and uncle Sibu went to the place of occurrence and brought his father back to his house, then they took him to the garden hospital and when his father regained his consciousness, he stated that the accused/appellant had hit him by an axe and at that moment his mother was also present with them. He also stated that later his father was taken from garden hospital to civil hospital and there from to Assam Medical College Hospital at Dibrugarh, where he died due to his head injury. In cross evidence, P.W. 5 Stated that accused appellant is his maternal uncle and accused house is about 3 houses away from his house, that he did not see how his father got the injury and that he died after 5 days of the incident and that he saw his father in an injured condition when he was brought to his house. He also stated that as police did not ask him, so he did not state before police that the accused/appellant caused injury on his father and stated before police that he came to know about the incident from his mother. 11. P.W. 6 Madan Bakti, son-in-law of the deceased in his evidence Stated that on the next morning of the date of the incident his mother-in-law (P.W. 1) informed him that his father-in-law was hit by the accused/appellant. 11. P.W. 6 Madan Bakti, son-in-law of the deceased in his evidence Stated that on the next morning of the date of the incident his mother-in-law (P.W. 1) informed him that his father-in-law was hit by the accused/appellant. Hearing it, he went to the garden hospital, saw injury on the head of Kangru. He stated that the victim, who was in the Mohabandha garden hospital, was taken to the civil hospital and at last to Dibrugarh, where he died after 4 days and during his hospitalization his father-in-law was unable to speak. In cross evidence, P.W. 6 stated he has not seen how his father-in-law got the injury and how he died and he went to see him only on the next morning of the incident and since then he found his father-in-law was unable to speak. 12. P.W. 7, Smti. Shanti Ghatwal, wife of the accused appellant in her evidence stated that at the time of the incident her husband accused/appellant was at his home. Thereafter, Kangru, the deceased; his son Bhaity, Sibu and Ratan came to their house with 'dao' and started fighting and they beat her husband and after that Kangru of his own hit at his head. Thereafter, Kangru and others left for their own house and her husband remained in his own house in an injured condition. In cross evidence P.W. 7 stated that Kangru, the deceased was the brother-in-law of her husband, the accused/appellant; she saw that the family members of Kangru came to beat her husband and a false case has been lodged against her husband. 13. P.W.8, Budheswar Ghatwal, neighbour of the accused/appellant in his evidence stated that at the time of the incident he was in his house, heard commotion in the out side, but he did not come out and on next morning heard that Kangru, his son Bhaity and other persons came to the house of the accused. He also heard that Kangru died about 8 days thereafter at Dibrugarh. Defence did not cross examine him. 14. P.W.9, Dr. Netramoni Kakoty, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Kangru Mosahor on 11.09.2009 on his evidence deposed that he found the following on the dead body of Kangru-- "Injuries (i) Stitch wound of length 8 cm with 5 Nos. Defence did not cross examine him. 14. P.W.9, Dr. Netramoni Kakoty, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Kangru Mosahor on 11.09.2009 on his evidence deposed that he found the following on the dead body of Kangru-- "Injuries (i) Stitch wound of length 8 cm with 5 Nos. of stitches on upper left parietal region vertically removing the stitches the underlying bone having depressed fracture of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm, (ii) Contusion of size 12 cm x 9 cm present over the vertex; Scalp & Skull As described. Vertebrae Healthy. Membrane Extramural hemorrhage of size 8 cm x 7 cm x 1/2 cm present upper part of both partietal lobes; rest of the membrane con gested. Brain Intra - cerebral hemorrhage present in both hemispheres and rest of the brain congested. Spinal Cord Not examined. The autopsy doctor, P.W.9 opined that the death was due to coma resulting from head injury as described and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force object. In cross on behalf of the accused P.W.9 the doctor stated that such type of injury may not be caused by fall on hard substance. 15. P.W. 10, Mohammad Hussain, the Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence stated that on 04.06.2009 as per direction of the Officer-in-Charge of Pulibor Police Station he took up the investigation of the case, went to the place of the occurrence on finding the informant and others in the police station, recorded their statement in there itself, the injured victim was already taken to the Dibrugarh hospital where he died, collected the post mortem report and the inquest report from the Barbari outpost, Dibrugarh and recorded the statement of the witnesses of the case. He also stated that during his investigation, he seized an axe with a bamboo handle, as taken out by the accused appellant Ranjit Ghatwal, in presence of witnesses, arrested the accused and submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation. In cross evidence, P.W. 10, the I.O. stated that the FIR was lodged one day after the incident i.e. on 04.06.2009 and the injured victim expired on 10.06.2009. He also stated that the informant P.W. 1 did not write the FIR herself and it did not contain the signature of the writer. In cross evidence, P.W. 10, the I.O. stated that the FIR was lodged one day after the incident i.e. on 04.06.2009 and the injured victim expired on 10.06.2009. He also stated that the informant P.W. 1 did not write the FIR herself and it did not contain the signature of the writer. He stated that witness Sibu (P.W.2) did not state before him that when his brother could talk a little he stated that accused/appellant had hit him and witness Durgesawar Tanti (P.W.4) also did not state before him that the accused/appellant inflicted injury on the deceased. But he stated that witness Bhaity Mosahor (P.W.5) stated before him that the accused/appellant inflicted injury on his father. The P.W. 10 also stated that he seized the axe on 04.06.2009 and the place of occurrence was the courtyard of the accused appellant inside the gate and that the accused/appellant is the own brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 10, the I.O. of the case, denied the suggestion that the accused/appellant of his own had given out the axe. 16. While perusing the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused/appellant recorded on 07.09.2010, it is seen that the accused on queries made by the Court admitted that, it was a Wednesday and while he was returning home from shop, after having liquor, on reaching near deceased's house, his dog chased him and he shouted back stating that he would kill that dog and left the place and after an hour the deceased, with his son P.W.2, brother P.W.5 and another, Ratan came to his house, broke his gate and others and when he came out, they beat him with 'lathi' (a stick made of bamboo/wood/cane) and he hit them back by 'tokan' ('lakhuti') [a bamboo/cane stick used for walking] and he does not know whom it had hit. The accused in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement also admitted that as the deceased & others caught hold of him, he had to hit them to save him. The accused further stated that he did not steal the bucket, did not hit by an axe and also stated that the police themselves brought the axe. He stated that police asked him whether he has an axe in his house and when he replied in affirmative, he was asked to bring the same and accordingly he bought the axe before police. 17. Heard Mr. Pranab Kr. He stated that police asked him whether he has an axe in his house and when he replied in affirmative, he was asked to bring the same and accordingly he bought the axe before police. 17. Heard Mr. Pranab Kr. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curie for the accused/appellant and Ms. Shemima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 18. Mr. Talukdar, learned Amicus on behalf of the accused appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident, there is no proof that the axe seized by police from the house of the accused/appellant has been used in the alleged crime and the prosecution has failed to prove any motive of the accused/appellant to commit the alleged crime as there was no enmity between him and the deceased. As such Mr. Talukdar submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the accused be set at liberty, since prosecution failed to bring home the case against the appellant. 19. Ms. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the trial Court has rightly recorded the Judgment of conviction and stated that it is evident from the deposition of PW1, PW 5, the autopsy doctor PW 9, the I.O. of the case PW 10, recovery of alleged weapon of assault that was seized from his residence and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused, are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant in this case. 20. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidences on record, both oral and documentary and also the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. 21. It is observed from the post mortem report and the evidence of P.W. 9, the autopsy doctor that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased- "Injuries (i) Stitch wound of length 8 cm with 5 Nos. of stitches on upper left parietal region vertically removing the stitches the underline bone having depressed fracture of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm, (ii) Contusion of size 12 cm x 9 cm present over the vertex;" and the doctor, P.W.9 opined that the death was due to coma resulting from head injury and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force object. The defence did not challenge the injuries found on the person of the deceased, its nature as well as the opinion of the doctor, noticed above. From the cross-examination of the P.W.9, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, it appears that the defence case is injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by fall on hard substance to which the doctor denied such suggestion. 22. The prosecution, therefore, could prove that Kangru, the deceased succumb due to coma resulting from head injury and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force object. 23. Now the question is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge had rightly and legally come to the finding that the prosecution had proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the appellant is the author of the crime and whether the accused intended to cause the injury on the deceased? 24. While going to through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as detailed above, it is seen that there is no eye witness to the incident and that the accused/appellant is the own brother-in-law of the deceased and they had a good relation, use to visit each other's house regularly. There is no evidence that there was any animosity between the accused/appellant and the deceased. The prosecution failed to prove any motive and/or intention on the part of the accused/appellant to kill his brother-in-law Kangru and there was no prosecution evidence that the incident had taken place with any premeditation. 25. Though P.W.2 stated that the deceased while he was in hospital told him that the accused/appellant had assaulted him and P.W.4 stated that when he asked Kangru after his injury, he stated that it is the accused/appellant who had assaulted him and P.W.5, son of the deceased also stated that his father when regained consciousness, in presence of his mother (P.W. 1), stated that it is the accused/appellant who inflicted injuries upon him by axe and P.W. 1 stated that she heard accused/appellant hit her husband by axe and her husband's injury was that of an axe; but these prosecution witnesses in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement did not state before police about the same, which is evident from the evidence of the P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer. It is also observed that the P.W. 1, wife of the deceased and mother of P.W.5, who was all along with her husband, the deceased after the incident, in her evidence stated that her husband was in an unconscious state and could not speak at all. Her statement is also corroborated by the P.W.6, son-in-law of the deceased who also stated that his father-in-law, the deceased after his injury till his death could not speak. 26. The prosecution though, placed a seized axe as a material exhibit, but it failed to show that the same very axe was used by the accused/appellant in the commission of the offence of hitting the, deceased, in his head. Again while going through the medical evidence of the deceased and the opinion of the Autopsy Doctor P.W.9, it is seen that injury on the deceased was caused by a blunt force object and there is no evidence in the case that an axe can cause such injury. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 cannot be considered to be reliable. 27. Going through the evidence of the prosecution it is seen that the on the date, of the incident at night there was a commotion in the house of the accused/appellant as evident from the evidence of the P.W. 1, wife of the deceased, neighbours P.W.4 and P.W.8. P.W. 1 on the night of the incident did not see when her husband went out after dinner, but after hearing hue & cry from the side of the house of accused she came out and after some time, found her husband, Kangru, the deceased lying in the court yard of the accused/appellant with injury. The P.W.4 after hearing the commotion came out and found the deceased with injury. The P.W.8 who is also a neighbour in his evidence stated that there was a commotion on the night of the incident outside his house, but he did not come out of his house at night and next day morning of the incident, he heard that the deceased with his son P.W.5, brother P.W.2 and others came to the house of the accused. The P.W.2 after hearing alarm from P.W. 1 came out and found the deceased lying in the court yard of the accused/appellant. The P.W.2 after hearing alarm from P.W. 1 came out and found the deceased lying in the court yard of the accused/appellant. Again P.W.5 stated that his father, the deceased went out after dinner, then the accused/appellant came to their house, taken away a bucket, the deceased went to the house of the accused in search of the bucket and when his father shouted after the accused inflicted injury on him, his mother P.W. 1 and uncle P.W.2 went out and brought him to the house. From all these, it proves that deceased went to the house of the accused/appellant, as such the deceased was the aggressor. 28. In the case of Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257 , with regard to Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of an accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed-- "Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence unless proven guilty and proof by the prosecution of its case beyond any reasonable doubt are the fundamentals of our criminal jurisprudence. When we speak of prejudice to an accused, it has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in relation to any of these protections substantially. Such prejudice should also demonstrate that it has occasioned failure of justice to the accused. One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice administration is that the courts should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as this expression is perhaps too pliable. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court. One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision Of the Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law." 29. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law." 29. This Court in the case of Mitias Kashyap v. State of Assam, reported in 1997 (20 GLT 76 dealt with the statement made by an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the Division Bench of this Court observed that-- "Sub-section (1) of Section 313 Cr.P.C. provides for examining the accused with a view to enable him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidences against him and this object of examination is totally frustrated when the statement itself is treated as substitute for evidence, which is contrary to all cannons of criminal jurisprudence and it is nothing but travesty of justice when such statement is conveniently split up. The statement recorded under Section 313Cr.P.C., the Court cannot use the same as proved, ignoring altogether the fact that the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge. However liberally taken and treated such statement cannot be substituted for evidence to prove the charge levelled against the accused." 30. Learned Trial Court accepting the statement of the accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came to a conclusion that though the accused did not receive any serious injury; he exceeded his right of self/private defence by inflicting injury on the victim/deceased which caused depressed fracture of left parietal region, contusion over vertex and extramural haemorrhage on both parietal lobes, as such not entitled to get benefit of existence of good faith i.e. Exception-2 to Section 300 of the IPC and found the accused to be guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him. 31. Learned Trial Court on 26.11.2009 framed the following charge against the accused/appellant-- "that you on or about 3.6.2009 at 5 P.M. at Mohbandha Tea Estate under Pulibor P.S. you committed murder with intention to cause death of Kangru Mosahar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC." 32. 31. Learned Trial Court on 26.11.2009 framed the following charge against the accused/appellant-- "that you on or about 3.6.2009 at 5 P.M. at Mohbandha Tea Estate under Pulibor P.S. you committed murder with intention to cause death of Kangru Mosahar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC." 32. From the injuries sustained by the deceased it is seen that he had depressed fracture of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm and contusion of size 12 cm x 9 cm over his vertex and as per doctor's opinion the death was due to coma resulting from head injury caused by blunt force object. However, if the intention of the accused was to cause death he should have inflicted some more injuries on any vital part of the body, but the deceased is found with a head injury caused by some blunt force object and that the incident occurred on 03.06.2009 and the deceased died on 10.06.2009, after seven days later. Therefore, considering entire circumstances and evidences on record, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention for causing the death of the deceased nor it can be said that he had exceeded his right of self defence as there was no eye witness to the incident, no one has seen the jurisdiction. But they must be attributed that by inflicting such injuries they were likely to cause the death of the deceased, in which case the offence will amount only to culpable homicide and not murder. 33. From the evidence as above noted and as proved by the prosecution, the accused/appellant Ranjit dealt a blow which fell on the head of the deceased and it is nobody's case that while dealing with a blow he aimed at the head of the deceased, nor there is an iota of evidence to suggest that he was in any manner prevented from repeating the blows by intervention of someone. It is in the evidence that when P.W.1 reached the house of the accused/appellant she found only her husband lying on the courtyard of the accused appellant and there was none in the place of occurrence. It is in the evidence that when P.W.1 reached the house of the accused/appellant she found only her husband lying on the courtyard of the accused appellant and there was none in the place of occurrence. From the injuries sustained by the deceased it is seen that he had depressed fracture of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm on upper left parietal region and contusion (a medical term, synonymous with bruise, dictionary meaning an injury to part of the body that does not break the skin) of size 12 cm x 9 cm over his vertex and as per doctor's opinion the death was due to coma resulting from head injury caused by blunt force object. However, if the intention of the accused was to cause death to the victim/deceased he should have inflicted some more injuries on any vital part of the body, but the deceased was found with head injury caused by some blunt force object and moreover, the incident occurred on 03.06.2009 and the victim died on 10.06.2009, seven days after the incident. Therefore the fact remains that only one blow on the head of the victim/deceased was dealt with by the accused appellant. Considering entire circumstances and evidences on record, it cannot be said that the accused had intended to cause the injury on the victim and to cause his death nor it can be said that he had exceeded his right of self defence as there was no eye witness to the incident and at the most it can be said that by inflicting such injuries the accused/appellant had knowledge that he was likely to cause the death and in such circumstances the offence committed by the accused/appellant would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 34. Following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment Bubu Lal v. State of Haryana reported in 1993 AIR (SC) 1941 and considering the evidence on record, the Court accordingly set aside and quash the conviction of the accused/appellant Ranjit Ghatwal under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the learned Trial Court. 35. Following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment Bubu Lal v. State of Haryana reported in 1993 AIR (SC) 1941 and considering the evidence on record, the Court accordingly set aside and quash the conviction of the accused/appellant Ranjit Ghatwal under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the learned Trial Court. 35. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence under Section 302 IPC and conviction imposed upon the accused/appellant is modified and he is convicted for an offence under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. 36. It is seen from the records that the accused appellant is in custody since his date arrest on 04.06.2009 i.e. during the trial and after his conviction by the learned Trial Court. The accused is given the benefit of set off under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, on completion of sentence imposed by this Court; he shall be released forthwith by the jail authorities. 37. The operative part of the order be communicated to the jail authorities and to the learned trial Court. 38. The learned amicus curiae shall be paid the professional fee of Rs. 7,500/- by the State within a period of 1 (one) month from today. Registry shall send down the LCRs forthwith.