Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1084 (GAU)

SAMSUL HAQUE LASKAR v. STATE OF MIZORAM

2016-12-02

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. This is a jail appeal directed against the Judgment dated 29.06.2016 and the sentence Order dated 01.07.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 77 of 213 convicting the appellant under Section 307 & 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 10 days for the offence under Section 307 IPC and also sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and on default, to undergo another period of 5 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. F. Lalengliana appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the State of Mizoram. 3. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as follows : That the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the incident. He drew the Court's attention to the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and he submitted that none of the witnesses said that they saw the accused cutting the throat of the victim and stabbing him on his belly. That there is no exact measurement of the wound suffered by the victim, the doctor who examined him only stated that the injuries were grievous. That the knife which is alleged to be the crime weapon is only 10 inches long on the sharp portion and 5 inches long on the handle side, therefore, by any imagination, it cannot be a weapon which can be used to kill a person. That the incident was due to a sudden quarrel which was caused by some misunderstanding at the spot. He cited the evidence given by the only defence witness who stated that he saw them having a quarrel and by that time the accused Samsul did not have a knife or weapon but the other party was having a dao and a knife. Then, he saw the accused trying to snatch the dao and the knife from the victim and because of that the victim might have been injured. That the evidence lacks ingredients of Section 307 IPC. Then, he saw the accused trying to snatch the dao and the knife from the victim and because of that the victim might have been injured. That the evidence lacks ingredients of Section 307 IPC. To prove an offence under Section 307, the facts and circumstances of the case must show that there was intention or motive on the part of the accused to caused the death of the victim but from the facts and circumstances of the case as stated by the witness, there was nothing to show that the accused had such intention or motive. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 551 particularly para 7 of the same which is as follows : "7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute' murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration it, determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under Section 307 IPC." 4. The Amicus Curiae also took a plea of sudden provocation and submitted as follows : Assuming that the injuries suffered by the victim were caused by the accused, it was due to sudden provocation. In order to support his plea, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the only defence witness states that the victim and his friends owe the accused a sum of Rs. 30,520/- which was the price of the pan he sold to them and on that day, the accused asked them to pay up the same, and the debtors told him to come near the SBI at Vairengte. When the accused reached near the SBI, the debtors asked him again to come down to Bagha to get the money. Since the accused did not believe them, he refused to go to Bagha. Thereafter, a quarrel ensued. Since the victim and the other debtors were with a dao and a knife, the accused tried to snatch the same from them and there was scrambling for the knife which might have caused the injuries. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that this facts and circumstances shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to cause such injuries on the body of the victim. According to him, premeditation calls for construction of a plan to execute certain act. In this case, as the facts shows, there is no premeditation on the part of the accused. In support of his submission he cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Shivram Patekar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 (1) SCC 694 , particularly para 18 & 19, which is as follows : "18. In support of his submission he cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Shivram Patekar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 (1) SCC 694 , particularly para 18 & 19, which is as follows : "18. Further, on the question of not raising the voice by the accused no. 2, in our opinion, it is understandable under this situation that the accused no.2 could have been in a state of shock and scared and hence would not have been in a position to reveal the incident of the rape to anyone. Thus, the contention made by the prosecution that the delay in lodging the complaint or revealing the same to the Sarpanch was premeditated on the part of the accused cannot be accepted by us on the fact and circumstances of the case. Even for the sake of argument, if we consider that the delay in lodging the complaint was a premeditated plan on the part of the accused, then the accused would not have delayed confronting the deceased until 8.00 a.m. the next morning. Premeditation calls for construction of a plan to execute a certain act. If the accused had planned on confronting and eventually committing the act of murder against the deceased, then they would not have executed the same in their own neighbourhood, in the presence of a number of witnesses. Hence. we are of the opinion that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused and the scuffle took place due to sudden provocation on the part of the deceased. This is further corroborated by the fact that the accused themselves reached the police station and lodged a complaint against the deceased and confessed to the scuffle, thereby submitting the knife (the murder weapon) at the police station. 19. The question however still remains as to the nature of the offence committed by the accused and whether it falls under Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra), this Court has held as under :- "7. To invoke this Exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight: (ii) there was no premeditation: (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion: and (iv)The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. To invoke this Exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight: (ii) there was no premeditation: (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion: and (iv)The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly." (emphasis supplied). 5. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram submits that to prove an offense under Section 307 IPC, it is settled law that the crime should have been premeditated in other words menstria must be present. As per the records, one can clearly see that there was menstria present on the side of the accused. In support of his submission, he cited the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 who stated that they saw the accused chasing the victim with a knife in his hand. The learned Public Prosecutor also cited the confirmatory answer of the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C when he was ashed the following question : Q: PWs R. Johnson-a, K. Lalhmangaihzuala, Lalremtluanga Renthlei saw you chasing the victim by holding a knife on the National Highway at Vairengte. Have you anything to say ? Ans: Yes, it is true. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused cannot be given the benefit of sudden provocation since the injuries on the victim were caused by the accused after chasing him and catching him. Had it not been because of the intervention of some of the witnesses and had it not been because of the strength of the victim, the accused would have killed him. 7. Had it not been because of the intervention of some of the witnesses and had it not been because of the strength of the victim, the accused would have killed him. 7. On perusal of the appeal petition and on hearing the Amicus Curiae I find that the appeal is confined only against the conviction under Section 307 IPC and not against the one under section 324 of IPC. Therefore, in this appeal, consideration shall be confined only with regard to the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC. The ground for the appeal is that the injuries caused to the victim was not intended but the same was due to the scuffle that took place between the accused and the victim over the knife which is alleged to have been used by the accused for inflicting the injuries. At this stage, it would be appropriate to place on record the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses : According to the evidence given by PW-7, who was the Investigating Officer of the case; On 13.04.2013 at about 9:50 pm, a complaint was received in the Vairengte Police Station from one Mr. Khaliur Rakhman Barbhuiya of Joidhanpur stating that on the same day at about 9:30 am, at Vairengte. Bangla Veng just behind the residence of Mr. R. Dokunga, his brother Alim Uddin (the victim) was assaulted by the accused Samsul Hoque Laskar of East Lalpani, Bilaipur with a knife, cutting his throat and stabbing on his belly with the intention to kill him. On receipt of the complaint, Vairengte P.S. Case No. 21/2013 dated 13.04.2016 under Section 307/326/324 IPC was registered and the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station endorsed the same to him for investigation. During the course of his investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, drew a sketch map of the same, arrested the accused and seized the knife at the place of occurrence itself. Thereafter, he evacuated the victim to Vairengte CHC for medical treatment and examination under police escort. He also stated that he examined the complainant, eyewitnesses, other witnesses and recorded their statements. That he interrogated the accused and the accused admitted his guilt of having assaulted the victim, causing injuries on his vital parts by using a sharp knife with the intention to kill him. He also stated that he examined the complainant, eyewitnesses, other witnesses and recorded their statements. That he interrogated the accused and the accused admitted his guilt of having assaulted the victim, causing injuries on his vital parts by using a sharp knife with the intention to kill him. That he seized the wearing apparels of the accused stained with blood which he wore during the time of committing the crime. After the investigation, he found prima facie case against the accused under Section 307/326/324 of IPC, therefore, he submitted the charge sheet accordingly. He exhibited the seizure memos as Ext.P-1 and he also exhibited other exhibits as follows : Ext.P-3 is the Injury Report of the victim. Ext.P-4 is the Charge Sheet and the Ext.P-4(a) is my signature. Ext.P-5 is Arrest Memo and Ext.P-5(a) is my signature. Ext.P-6 is the sketch map of the PO and Ext.P-6(a) is my signature. Ext.P-7 is the Form of FIR and Ext.P-7(a) is the LTI of the complainant. Ext.P-8 is the original FIR and Ext.P-8(a) is the LTI of the complainant. Ext.M-III & IV are the articles seized by me. There is nothing in the cross-examination which can shake the evidence of the P W-7, the Investigating Officer. PW-5 is one Sub-Inspector of Police D. Sharma. He stated that on 13.04.2013, at about 11:30 am, he seized one mix coloured shirt and a track-pant in Brown colour which were stained with the blood of the victim Alim Uddin at Silchar Medical Hospital in the presence of Abul Hoque Barbhuiya and Fajur Rahman Kaskar in connection with Vairengte P.S. Case No. 21/2013, dated 13.04.2013, under Section 307/326/324 IPC. He also exhibited the seizure list prepared by him and the blood stained shirt and pant of the victim seized by him. PW-6 is the Doctor namely C. Lalrinchhana, who examined the victim right after the incident. He stated that on 13.04.2014 at about 10:30 am, as requisitioned by S.I. Lalramnghaka, he examined Mr. Alim Uddin (victim) s/o L.T. Sonahar Ali of Joidhanpur, Kachar District and found the following injuries on him : SI. PW-6 is the Doctor namely C. Lalrinchhana, who examined the victim right after the incident. He stated that on 13.04.2014 at about 10:30 am, as requisitioned by S.I. Lalramnghaka, he examined Mr. Alim Uddin (victim) s/o L.T. Sonahar Ali of Joidhanpur, Kachar District and found the following injuries on him : SI. Site Weapon Used Type of Injury Remarks 1 Antero (L) lateral neck Sharp Incised wound upto the depth of cutting trachea Grievous 2 Abdomen Sharp Penetrating wound piercing Abdominal wall Grievous 3 Right hand & finger Sharp Multiple incised wound Simple 4 Left hand Sharp Incised wound Simple He also gave his opinion that the nature of injuries was grievous and the weapon used was sharp and the age of the injury was about 1 hr back. The witness exhibited his report on the injuries suffered by the victim as Ext.P-3. PW-1 is the victim himself. In his deposition he stated that he know the accused Samsul Haque as he used to deal with him in his business as vegetable vendor. He also stated that it was on a day in the year 2011 that the incident took place though he can not remember the exact date. On that day he bought pan from another vendor and did not take pan from the accused. At that time the accused asked him to give him money for the pan and he replied to him that he had no reason to give him. The accused told him that his friends took pan from him. He again replied the accused that he had no knowledge about it and he did not give him the money. It was then that the 2 (two) friends of the accused caught hold of him and the accused started assaulting him with the knife on different parts of his body and due that, he sustained injuries on his hand, palm, abdomen and on the neck. The witness also stated that the incident occurred in front of a Bank at Vairengte around 8:30 in the morning. The PW-1 went on and stated that if it were not for the intervention of 2 (two) Mizos, he could have been killed. He also stated that the 2 (two) Mizos took him to Vairengte Hospital and from there he was referred to a Hospital at Gurgaon, Silchar where he was hospitalized for 26 days. The PW-1 went on and stated that if it were not for the intervention of 2 (two) Mizos, he could have been killed. He also stated that the 2 (two) Mizos took him to Vairengte Hospital and from there he was referred to a Hospital at Gurgaon, Silchar where he was hospitalized for 26 days. The PW stated further that the report was lodged by his elder brother as he was unconscious. He identified the Ext.M-I as his shirt and pant. He also identified Ext.M-II as the lungi, shirt and vest worn by the accused at the time of the incident. PW-2 is one Mr. R. Johnson-a, the witness stated in his deposition that he know the accused as lie saw him during the fight. He also stated that he is a resident of Vairengte and owned a shop at Bangla Veng, near SBI. The witness narrated the incident as follows : That in the morning of the incident, he was sitting at the veranda of his shop which is near a National Highway, and while sitting as such, he saw the accused with a knife in his hand which is bigger than a kitchen knife chasing after a person. Both the accused and the person he was chasing ran past his shop and while they were running, the person chased after shouted in fear. After knowing that the 2 had ran below the house of Mr. Bawihlira and ran towards the garden of P. Dokunga he also went running to the same garden. By the time he reached, the accused had already cut the throat of the victim and there was profuse bleeding from it. He also found both the accused and the victim grappling for the knife, the accused holding the same from the handle side and the victim holding on the other end with his hand bleeding. He told both of them to release their hands but they did not do so, so he caught hold of the knife with both his hands and snatch it from them. By then a crowd had gathered, therefore, he did no remember to whom he had given the knife. The victim was taken to the hospital by Auto-rickshaw but the accused who did not suffer any injury was apprehended by the crowd and handed over to the police. By then a crowd had gathered, therefore, he did no remember to whom he had given the knife. The victim was taken to the hospital by Auto-rickshaw but the accused who did not suffer any injury was apprehended by the crowd and handed over to the police. As there was blood stain on his shirt he went home and changed. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know the cause of the fight between the accused and the victim as he was not acquainted with them. He also stated that he did not see the fight and the accused inflicting the injuries, but he saw the injuries. PW-3 is one Mr. K. Lalhmangaihzuala, a resident of Bangla Veng, Vairengte. The witness stated that he did not know the accused earlier. He also stated that he saw the victim chased by the accused and by the time he reached the place with Johnson-a (PW-2), the accused had already caused injuries to the victim. By then, many people had come to the place of occurrence and soon thereafter the police also reached the place and took away the victim who was profusely bleeding from the cut on his throat to the hospital. He also slated that he saw the blood stain on the shirt and lungi worn by the victim and he also signed on the seizure memo as seizure witness for the shirt and lungi. The witness identified the seizure memo Ext.P-I and his signature on it as Ext.P-I(a). He also identified Ext.M-III, seized blood stained shirt and lungi worn by the victim. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not see the throat of the victim being cut but he saw the cut injury. The witness also stated that he did not know whether the victim inflicted self injury on his throat as they were out of their sight and since they were chasing each other (the victim and the accused). PW-4 is one Mr. Lalrintluanga Renthlei s/o R. Johnson-a of Vairengte, Bangla Veng. He appears to be the son of the same R. Johnson-a (PW-2). The PW stated that in the forenoon of 13.04.2013, he saw the accused chasing the victim between the house of Pu. Bawihlira and R. Dokunga and he also saw the accused getting hold of the victim. Lalrintluanga Renthlei s/o R. Johnson-a of Vairengte, Bangla Veng. He appears to be the son of the same R. Johnson-a (PW-2). The PW stated that in the forenoon of 13.04.2013, he saw the accused chasing the victim between the house of Pu. Bawihlira and R. Dokunga and he also saw the accused getting hold of the victim. Seeing that there was some danger, people who were nearby such as Pu Johnson-a, Pu Hmangaiha and Pu Oliver-a ran to the spot. By the time they reached, the accused had already caused cut injuries on the victim. The witness added and stated that to his knowledge, the moment they (likely referring to the three persons mentioned above) reached below the house of Pu Bawihlira, the accused had already caused cut injuries on the throat of the victim with a knife measuring about 15 inches. The witness also stated that he was not present at the time of the incident. He only saw the accused person being caught. The witness further stated that he went to the site when the police arrived and seized the knife in his presence and he put his signature as seizure witness. He identified Ext.P-I i.e. the seizure memo and his signature on it as Ext.P-I(b). The witness also identified Ext. M-IV i.e. knife which he identified as the one seized by the police. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know the victim but he knew the accused as Samsul. He also stated that he did not know the caused of the argument between the victim and the accused but he knew that both of them were engaged in the business of selling betel leave. The witness finally stated that he did not see the accused causing cut injuries on the throat of the victim but he saw the victim being taken to Vairengte Hospital. 8. The offence attempt to murder as described under Section 307 is given herein below : "307. Attempt to murder. The witness finally stated that he did not see the accused causing cut injuries on the throat of the victim but he saw the victim being taken to Vairengte Hospital. 8. The offence attempt to murder as described under Section 307 is given herein below : "307. Attempt to murder. - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to (imprisonment for life), or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned." A bare reading of the above provision of law and on Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh makes it clear that to constitute the offence of attempt to murder, there should be intention and knowledge present in the mind of the accused before and during the commission of the same. Without it, causing of injuries by a person however serious it may be will not attract the punishment prescribed in the Section. Further, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder, without this ingredient being established there can be no offence of attempt to murder. However, there cannot be direct evidence on such state of mind. The only way to find out is from the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts and circumstances can only be gathered from the evidence given by the witnesses. From the evidence given by the witnesses as given above, there is no indication that the accused and the victim had enmity or any other reason which could have given birth to such intention or motive in the mind of the accused to kill the victim. In fact, from evidence of the PW-1 i.e. the victim, it appears that he and accused are more than acquaintance and the incident happen as a chance happening. In fact, from evidence of the PW-1 i.e. the victim, it appears that he and accused are more than acquaintance and the incident happen as a chance happening. Evidence of PW-1 as already been given above stated that he knew the accused as they were dealing with each other in vegetable business and on the date of the incident, he went to take pan but that day he bought it from some other vendor and not from the accused vendor. And that the accused asked him to pay money for the pan which he alleged was taken by his friends and when he told him that he had no knowledge of it, the accused started assaulting him with the knife. It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was called by the accused to the place of the incident or the accused was waiting for him to cause the injuries in order to kill him. It appears to be, as stated above a chance meeting and the incident happened because of some misunderstanding during the conversation. The victim, from his statement, it appears that he really did not believe that the accused had the intention to kill him. The reason is that in his cross-examination, he stated that I have forgiven. If he had really believed that the injuries caused to him were caused intentionally by the accused to kill him, it would not have been so easy to say on his part that he had forgiven him. Further, there is only 1 (one) defence witness i.e. one Mr. Hmuchhuaka Khawlhring. It is stated by him that he knew the accused and he saw them quarrelling that led to the cause of injuries on the victim. From the evidence given by him, it appears that he was present when the sudden quarrel took place between the accused and the victim. He stated that the accused and the victim's party met near the SBI and the quarrel started. He also stated that the accused was not carrying any knife but the victim and his group were having a dao and the knife. So, the accused tried to snatch the dao and the knife. From this evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused was not in possession of the knife which he used as the offence weapon and he was not prepared for the fight. So, the accused tried to snatch the dao and the knife. From this evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused was not in possession of the knife which he used as the offence weapon and he was not prepared for the fight. This shows that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the accused to commit murder of the victim. As for the other witnesses, it is apparent from their evidence that they were not present when the quarrel (fight started but they saw the accused an the victim only when they were chasing eat other. Therefore, their evidence is of no value as regarding the intention or motive of the accused. To cut it short, the over all evidence in this case does not show or prove that f accused had any intention of killing the victim. In the absence of such evidence, the charge against the accused under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. The doctrine of sudden provocation have been made very clear by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh as reported in (2012) 13 SCC 663. The relevant portion of the Judgment is at para 18 and 19. The same is given herein below: "18. The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person place in such circumstances could lose self-control but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury. 19. Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury. 19. Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting in sudden and temporary loss of self-control and the one which inspires an actual intention to kill. Such act should have been done during the continuation of the state of mind and the time for such person to kill and reasons to regain the dominion over the mind. Once there is premeditated act with the intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When we consider the facts of the case in hand, it is obvious and, as already noticed, tobru (small axe) is a commonly available weapon in the houses in the hills which is used for cutting and collection the firewood. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the cooking gas was not available in interior parts of hills 12 years back. The provocation was sudden and apparently or grave nature. It is the case of prosecution itself that the deceased was abusing and even assaulting his father and the father had shouted for help and called the accused who was already in the house. The deceased was in a drunken state. As it appears that tobru was easily available which the accused picked up and went straight out and assaulted his brother, the deceased. The injuries proved fatal. There is no prosecution evidence to show that there was animosity between the deceased and the accused or there was any other motive much less a premeditation to kill the accused. They had been living in the same house for years. No unpleasant incident or physical fight was stated to gave been reported to the police in the past. If one examines the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence while keeping the relationship of the parties in mind and the factum of the deceased being in a drunken state abusing and assaulting his father, it can reasonably be inferred that there was sudden and grave provocation to the accused. In our society, a son normally would not tolerate that his father is insulted, much less assaulted. In our society, a son normally would not tolerate that his father is insulted, much less assaulted. Of course, the weapon used in the crime was with the knowledge that it could cause a grievous hurt endangering the life or even cause death of the deceased but, as indicated supra, such weapon is most easily available in houses." 9. Applying the doctrine of sudden provocation in this case, it would be appropriate to refer back to the statement of the witnesses as already given above. In brief, none of the witnesses except the PW-1 who is the victim himself and the sole defence witness saw and know how the fight between the accused and the victim started and this has already been discussed above. From the discussion already had, it would be clear that there is no facts and circumstances which would go to show that the accused would have premeditated or had the intention of killing the victim but the injuries of the victim was as a result of a sudden quarrel that ensued on a chance meeting. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is partly allowed, that is, as far as it is concerned with the conviction under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the judgment convicting the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC is set aside. And that part of the Judgment & Order convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC is up-held. With this, the Criminal appeal is disposed of. The service rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated and he should be paid his appropriate fees by the State Legal Services Authority.