Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 703 (MP)

Pappu alias Chandra Prakash v. State of M. P.

2017-05-23

N.K.GUPTA, S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : N. K. GUPTA, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 2-2-2002 passed by XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 384/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 19-6-1996 at about 09:00 pm, the appellant passed by in front of the house of the deceased Bhagirath in Tikoniya, Morar on a bicycle upon which he had kept a wooden rib of cot. While passing in such a way, that wooden rib of cot dashed one of the buffaloes of the deceased Bhagirath and, therefore, the deceased Bhagirath told him not to transport such wooden rib of cot on a bicycle. Thereafter, heated exchange of words took place between them and the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash left the place for his house and threatened the deceased Bhagirath that he would “see him”. Thereafter, at about 10:30 pm the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash and his father Dayaram came to the spot in a matador and started abusing the deceased Bhagirath. When the deceased Bhagirath told them not to abuse him, the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash gave four-five blows with his knife. Dayaram and Vishnu also pelted stones upon the deceased Bhagirath, his wife and his sons. Other accused like Totaram, Rajendra, Lalla and Tulsi were shouting and exhorting the accused- appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash. The deceased Bhagirath was taken to the hospital where he lodged a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10. Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) recorded a Dying Declaration Ex.P5 of the deceased Bhagirath. While his treatment was still going on, he succumbed to the injuries. After performing the various formalities the dead body of the deceased Bhagirath was sent for post-mortem. Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Bhagirath and gave his report Ex.P4. He found ten stitched wounds to the deceased on his chest and abdomen. One incised wound was also found on his waist which was skin deep. On opening of the wound, he found that omentum, large intestine and small intestine were stitched at various places. Those were cut due to assault from a stabbing weapon. According to Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5), the deceased Bhagirath died due to aforesaid injuries and complications due to profuse bleeding. 3. On opening of the wound, he found that omentum, large intestine and small intestine were stitched at various places. Those were cut due to assault from a stabbing weapon. According to Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5), the deceased Bhagirath died due to aforesaid injuries and complications due to profuse bleeding. 3. ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11 who recorded the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 sent the same for registration of crime and the FIR Ex.P11 was registered. He also gave a request letter to record the Dying Declaration. SHO Pradeep Rajoriya (PW13) went to the spot and prepared a spot map Ex.P12. He also recovered the minibus (matador) by which the appellant and his companions had travelled to the spot and prepared a recovery memo Ex.P13. He took bloodstained and plain soil from the spot and prepared a recovery memo Ex.P14. The appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash was arrested and a buttoned knife was recovered from him vide a seizure memo Ex.P3. Various other accused persons were arrested and their weapons were recovered. SHO Pradeep Rajoriya (PW13) examined various witnesses under section 161 of CrPC. Various articles received from the hospital, picked up by the investigating officer from the spot and weapons recovered from the accused, were sent for Forensic Science Analysis. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Gwalior who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. 4. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. Since the co-accused Totaram had lodged the FIR against the deceased Bhagirath about a previous quarrel, various accused persons were falsely implicated in the matter. In defence, Surendra Singh Parihar (DW1) and Ashok Sharma (DW2) were examined. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the remaining accused persons and also acquitted the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash from the charge of section 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code but convicted and sentenced him under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. First of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not ? In this connection, the evidence of Dr. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. First of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not ? In this connection, the evidence of Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) may be considered who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Bhagirath and gave a report Ex.P4. He found following injuries to the deceased :— “(1) Stitched wound 4 stitches sized 4½ cm on the left side of chest at level of third rib 6 cm away from sternum edges transversely placed. (2) Stitched wound 15 cm with 13 stitches vertically placed at the middle of abdomen (upper part) up-to umbilicus, abdominal cavity deep. (3) Stitched wound 11 cm with 10 stitches vertically placed at middle of abdomen just 1 cm below from umbilicus, abdominal cavity deep. (4) 3 cm stitched wound obliquely placed 12 cm away from umbilicus left side of abdomen, abdominal cavity deep. (5) 8 cm stitched wound with 7 stitches on right epigastrium region, abdominal cavity deep, obliquely placed. (6) 1½ cm stitched wound obliquely placed on right iliac fossa ½ cm deep. (7) 2½ cm stitched wound with 3 stitches on left iliac fossa, abdominal cavity deep. (8) 2½ cm stitched wound on lateral side of abdomen at middle part obliquely placed with 3 stitches. (9) 3 cm stitched wound on left upper epigastrium region obliquely placed with 3 stitches, abdominal cavity deep. (10) Incised wound stitched with clear cut margin 2 x ½ x skin deep on the back at lumber region opposite 1st lumber vertebra. (11) Tear in spleen with clear cut margin at lateral middle part, sized 3 cm. (12) Tear in abdominal wall injuries no.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. (13) Stitched wound in anterior part and middle of stomach with 7 stitches 6 cm size. (14) Tear of omentum opposite the wounds with blood in abdomen cavity. (15) Tear of middle part of descending colon nonstitched 2½ cm with faecal matter comes out. (16) No bony injury found on body, venesection on left leg.” According to Dr. Yogendra Singh, various stitched wounds were found to the deceased Bhagirath and the deceased sustained injuries on small intestine, large intestine and other parts of the abdomen and due to the cumulative injuries and the profuse bleeding, he lost his life. Dr. (16) No bony injury found on body, venesection on left leg.” According to Dr. Yogendra Singh, various stitched wounds were found to the deceased Bhagirath and the deceased sustained injuries on small intestine, large intestine and other parts of the abdomen and due to the cumulative injuries and the profuse bleeding, he lost his life. Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) who treated the deceased Bhagirath, also recorded a Dying Declaration Ex.P5 and it was confirmed that the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon, like a knife. Looking to the number of injuries and their effect, the opinion given by Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) is acceptable that the death of the deceased Bhagirath was homicidal in nature. So many injuries could not be caused to the deceased Bhagirath due to an accident. Similarly, such injuries could not be caused by the deceased Bhagirath himself and hence, when death of the deceased Bhagirath was neither accidental nor suicidal, the opinion of Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) is acceptable that his death was homicidal in nature. 8. In the present case, the witnesses Prem Bai (PW1), Jitendra (PW2) and Dharmendra (PW3) etc. have been examined as eyewitnesses. They have stated that initially at about 09:00 pm the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash was going on a bicycle having a wooden rib of cot on the bicycle and he gave a dash with that wooden rib to a buffalo at the house of the deceased Bhagirath and when the deceased Bhagirath blamed the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash, then he started quarrelling and thereafter, he went from the spot giving a threat to the deceased Bhagirath and then he came back alongwith various companions and started abusing the deceased Bhagirath and thereafter, he gave various blows of knife to the deceased Bhagirath causing his death. Various contradictions were brought in the statements of these witnesses relating to number of blows and sequence of blows and where the injuries were caused to the deceased but such computation cannot be provided by the witnesses when the incident took place in a sudden spirit. The evidence of these eyewitness is duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR which was recorded in the shape of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10. The FIR was lodged within one hour and twenty minutes of the incident while the spot was two kilometers away from the police station. The evidence of these eyewitness is duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR which was recorded in the shape of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10. The FIR was lodged within one hour and twenty minutes of the incident while the spot was two kilometers away from the police station. The FIR/Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 was lodged by the deceased Bhagirath himself and it is duly proved by ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11). ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) has stated that he went to the hospital and recorded a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10. He also gave a requisition to the concerned doctor for recording of Dying Declaration and that application was Ex.D4. In the meaning time, the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 was recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10). He proved the Dying Declaration Ex.P5. The Dying Declaration was recorded in question-answer form and Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) has clearly opined at closure of the Dying Declaration that the deceased Bhagirath was in a fit condition to give Dying Declaration. In that Dying Declaration, the deceased Bhagirath has stated that the injuries were caused by the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash, son of Dyaram Lahari. 9. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram vs. State of M. P., 2010 (III) MPWN 9 , in which it is held that Dying Declaration should be proved by admissible evidence. If Dying Declaration Ex.P5 recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) is considered, then before the trial Court, Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj had to give the complete description of Dying Declaration and according to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram (supra), the Dying Declaration is properly proved. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the deceased Bhagirath sustained many injuries and that he was not in a position to give any statement, therefore, the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 was not the actual Dying Declaration of the deceased. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the deceased Bhagirath sustained many injuries and that he was not in a position to give any statement, therefore, the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 was not the actual Dying Declaration of the deceased. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Laxmi vs. Om Prakash and others, AIR 2001 SC (Cri) 2383 was referred, in which it is mentioned that before accepting the Dying Declaration the Court should satisfy that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and capable to make the statement when he gave a Dying Declaration and the same was recorded. In the present case, Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) has categorically stated that the deceased Bhagirath was in a fit condition to give his statement and he gave answers to the questions asked by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj. When a doctor confirms about the mental state of the deceased at the time of recording of Dying Declaration then it cannot be accepted that the deceased Bhagirath was not in a condition so that he could not give Dying Declaration. The Dying Declaration Ex.P5 as recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj is acceptable. 10. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that when there was an opportunity for the police to send a requisition to the Executive Magistrate for recording of Dying Declaration, then it was for the Executive Magistrate to record the Dying Declaration and if Dying Declaration was recorded by others, then such Dying Declaration cannot be accepted. He has referred to the statement of ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) who has stated that he sent a requisition as Ex.D4 and he recorded the Dehati Nalishi at about 11:50 pm whereas Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) who was a treating doctor, did not receive any such requisition and he recorded Dying Declaration of the deceased at about 12:30 am on 20-6-1996. Since Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) who was a treating doctor, did not receive any such requisition and he recorded Dying Declaration of the deceased at about 12:30 am on 20-6-1996. Since Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj was the treating doctor and he says that no police officer had visited the hospital in front of him still the possibility cannot be ruled out that ASI RI Tiwari (PW11) would have visited the hospital and recorded a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 and since he recorded the Dehati Nalishi, he gave requisition Ex.D4 in written to record the Dying Declaration and it is possible that the staff of the hospital did not produce that requisition when Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj started examining the deceased Bhagirath. Hence, by difference of timings an overt act of Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj did not create any doubt that he did not record the Dying Declaration at a proper time or the deceased Bhagirath was not in a fit condition to give the Dying Declaration. Hence, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Laxmi (supra) cannot be applied in a negative form. According to the dictum laid down in that judgment, Dying Declaration was recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj and the deceased Bhagirath was in a fit state of mind and capable of giving statements. Hence, the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 is trustworthy. 11. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that a complete address of the appellant was not given in Dying Declaration Ex.P5 and, therefore, it cannot be accepted to connect the appellant with the crime. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gopal Singh and another vs. State of M. P. and another, AIR 1972 SC 1557 is referred, in which it is held that in Dying Declaration if names and addresses of the accused persons are omitted then such Dying Declaration cannot be used against the accused persons. However, in the present case, the various witnesses have stated that initially a quarrel took place between the deceased Bhagirath and the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash and thereafter, the appellant went to the spot along-with his father Dayaram who had also participated in the assault and quarrel. Therefore, if the deceased Bhagirath has stated that he was assaulted by Pappu son of Dayaram Lahari then he gave a complete address and identification of the appellant. Therefore, if the deceased Bhagirath has stated that he was assaulted by Pappu son of Dayaram Lahari then he gave a complete address and identification of the appellant. It was for the appellant to prove that he had a brother who is known as Pappu, son of Dayaram Lahari but the appellant could not prove any of his brothers was called by name of Pappu. Hence, the appellant was identifiable by the description given in the Dying Declaration Ex.P5. Hence, the law laid down in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) is not acceptable in the present case. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 proved by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) is acceptable. The Dying Declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and the accused can be convicted for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the sole basis of Dying Declaration. However, in the present case, there is availability of the eyewitnesses in the case. Hence, the Dying Declaration can be used as a substantive piece of evidence as well as for corroboration of eye-witnesses. 12. The evidence of eye-witnesses is duly corroborated by the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 recorded by ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11). Though it is pointed out by learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that there was interpolation in the date of the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 but since the Dehati Nalishi was taken soon before 12 O’clock in the night and it was possible that ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) would have mentioned the date 20-6-1996 by mistake with the apprehension that Dehati Nalishi was recorded after 12 O’clock and thereafter, if he corrected his mistake, then by such correction the entire Dehati Nalishi cannot be discarded. Dehati Nalishi is duly supported by the FIR Ex.P11 which was recorded on 20-6-1996 at about 00:10 am i.e. within 20 minutes of recording of Dehati Nalishi. Hence, it cannot be said that ASI R. A. Tiwari had recorded Dehati Nalishi after the death of the deceased Bhagirath or that it was an ante-timed document. It is true that there is a little contradiction between the statements of Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) and ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) that ASI Tiwari did not meet Dr. Hence, it cannot be said that ASI R. A. Tiwari had recorded Dehati Nalishi after the death of the deceased Bhagirath or that it was an ante-timed document. It is true that there is a little contradiction between the statements of Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) and ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) that ASI Tiwari did not meet Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj who was the treating doctor and, therefore, according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant a doubt is created to Dehati Nalishi that it was not recorded at an appropriate time. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Paramjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997 CAR 1 (SC) in which it is held that such Dying Declaration recorded by the police is not acceptable. Factual position of case of Paramjit Singh (supra) is quite different from the present matter. In the case of Paramjit Singh (supra), the deceased was admitted in the hospital for one and half months but the Investigating Officer did not try to arrange the recording of his Dying Declaration by the Executive Magistrate and he simply recorded his Dying Declaration on his own and there was no description about the health condition of the deceased when such Dying Declaration was recorded. In the present matter, it appears that ASI R. A. Tiwari (PW11) went to the hospital at about 11:50 pm and recorded Dahati Nalishi Ex.P10. At that time, Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) was not present who recorded the Dying Declaration Ex.P5 at about 12:30 am on 20-6-1996. Hence, it is possible that ASI R. A. Tiwari went to the hospital first and he left before arrival of Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj. However, if Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj found the deceased Bhagirath to be competent and fit for giving the Dying Declaration at 12:30 am then it cannot be said that at about 11:50 pm in the same night the deceased was not competent to give his statement. Hence, though there is no certificate given by the doctor that the deceased Bhagirath was in a fit condition of his mind, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 recorded by ASI R. A. Tiwari cannot be discarded on the basis that there was no medical certificate appended below that Dehati Nalishi. Hence, though there is no certificate given by the doctor that the deceased Bhagirath was in a fit condition of his mind, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 recorded by ASI R. A. Tiwari cannot be discarded on the basis that there was no medical certificate appended below that Dehati Nalishi. Also, the same text of evidence was given by the deceased Bhagirath to Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj in Dying Declaration Ex.P5 and, therefore, if Dehati Nalishi Ex.P10 is discarded then still by the remaining evidence the case of the prosecution is duly proved. 13. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Somappa Vamanappa Madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831 may be referred, in which it is held that if the FIR is discarded due to any reason then testimony of the eye-witnesses and other evidence should be considered by its own merits. In the present case, if the evidence of eye-witnesses Prem Bai (PW1), Jitendra (PW2) and Dharmendra (PW3) is considered along-with Dying Declaration Ex.P5 recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) and the injuries found to the deceased by Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Bhagirath and gave a report Ex.P4, then the deceased found such injuries which were shown to be caused by the appellant and as described by the eyewitnesses. Hence, the evidence of the eyewitness is duly corroborated. 14. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the witness Uday Singh (PW9) who took the deceased Bhagirath in his auto-rickshaw has stated that the deceased Bhagirath was not accompanied by his mother or brothers and, therefore, the eye-witnesses are not the actual eyewitnesses. Being relatives of the deceased Bhagirath, they cooked a story. However, the witness Uday Singh (PW9) has declared hostile. In his Case Diary statement ExP8 he has stated about the incident and presence of family members of the deceased Bhagirath. Under these circumstances, testimony of hostile witness Uday Singh cannot be accepted in such a manner that testimony of the eye-witnesses would be discarded. At this stage, it can be said that if testimony of all the eye-witnesses is discarded still the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash can be convicted only on the basis of Dying Declaration Ex.P5 recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10). At this stage, it can be said that if testimony of all the eye-witnesses is discarded still the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash can be convicted only on the basis of Dying Declaration Ex.P5 recorded by Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10). Under these circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant gave many blows of knife and killed the deceased Bhagirath. 15. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also referred to the evidence given by Surendra Singh Parihar (DW1) and Ashok Sharma (DW2) to show that unknown persons were beating the deceased Bhagirath and thereafter, Uday Singh(PW9) a driver of two- seater, took the deceased Bhagirath to the hospital and the witness Surendra Singh Parihar told the witness Dharmendra (PW3), son of the deceased Bhagirath, about the incident and he also informed that he did not know the names of the culprits. Hence, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the culprits were unknown and wife and sons of the deceased Bhagirath have falsely implicated the appellant. It is possible that the defence witnesses Surendra Singh Parihar and Ashok Sharma might have not known the appellant but the deceased had identified the appellant and he blamed him in the Dying Declaration Ex.P5. Hence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses is reliable. It is possible that the witnesses Surendra Singh and Ashok Sharma were the created witnesses in favour of the appellant to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Hence, by statements of these two witnesses there is no adverse effect on the prosecution case. 16. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that there was no arrangement of light at the spot and therefore, neither the eye-witnesses nor the deceased Bhagirath could see the actual culprits. However, by the statements of Surendra Singh Parihar (DW1) and Ashok Sharma (DW2), it is proved that there was sufficient light so that these witnesses were capable to see the incident. Also, no cross-examination was done of the various eye-witnesses relating to availability of appropriate light and hence, such submission cannot be accepted at this stage. 17. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that quarrel was started on the basis of a trifling matter and the appellant had never intended to kill the deceased Bhagirath and, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly convicted him of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 17. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that quarrel was started on the basis of a trifling matter and the appellant had never intended to kill the deceased Bhagirath and, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly convicted him of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. However, the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, cannot be accepted. 18. According to the factual position of this case, initially a quarrel was started between the appellant and the deceased Bhagirath on a trifling matter but the appellant went back after giving a threat to the deceased Bhagirath and thereafter, he came to the spot with some companions. The appellant had a knife with him and according to Dr. Vishwajit Jalaj (PW10) who proved the bedhead ticket Ex.P6 of the deceased Bhagirath, many injuries to the deceased Bhagirath were found caused by a sharp cutting weapon. Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW5) has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P4 of the deceased. According to him, there were eleven injuries caused by a sharp cutting weapon, out of them some injuries were stab wounds and various vital organs of the body were found cut. If the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash was not interested to kill the deceased Bhagirath then he could teach a lesson to the deceased Bhagirath by giving one or two blows of knife but according to post-mortem report Ex.P4 he has given as many as eleven blows of knife to the deceased Bhagirath. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash did not intend to kill the deceased Bhagirath. In this case, looking to the conduct of the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash that he came with a plan to kill the deceased Bhagirath, he was accompanied by his father and other companions and he gave as many as eleven blows to the deceased Bhagirath, out of which various blows were on chest and abdomen and other vital parts of the body of the deceased Bhagirath and caused injuries to many vital parts like omentum, large intestine and small intestine etc. then under these circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant had intended to kill the deceased Bhagirath. 19. then under these circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant had intended to kill the deceased Bhagirath. 19. The appellant did not prove any factual position that at the time of incident the deceased Bhagirath did any activity so that any right of private defence would have accrued to the appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash or that he was under sudden or grave provocation. If a quarrel had taken place two hours before the incident then provocation received by the appellant was relaxed and after two hours it cannot be said that he was under sudden or grave provocation. On the other hand, he went to take revenge with the deceased Bhagirath because Bhagirath had blamed him for causing injury to one buffalo. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and there is no reason to intervene in the judgment of the trial Court where conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was recorded. 20. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has recorded the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, no further dilution can be done by this Court. Hence, no interference is required on the order of sentence recorded by the trial Court. 21. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, appeal filed by the appellant has no substance. Consequently, it cannot be accepted. The appeal filed by appellant Pappu alias Chandra Prakash is hereby dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against him for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 22. The appellant is in jail and the Registry is directed to provide a copy of the judgment to the appellant with the intimation that he can file an SLP before the Apex Court either directly or with the help of High Court Legal Services Committee. 23. A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.