JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Vandana Sinha assisted by Senior Counsel Mr. P.K. Verma and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad for the State. 2. The appellant Hopna Hansda is the sole appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the judgment of conviction dated 07.08.1996 and order of sentence dated 08.08.1996, passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1995 by learned Sessions Judge, Godda. 3. The case of the prosecution has unfolded on the basis of the fardbeyan of Chono Murmu (P.W.-10) informant recorded at village Daharlangi in the house of informant at 6:00 hours on 12.12.1994 by sub-inspector Birendra Prasad, officer-in-charge of Boarijore P.S. Informant inter alia alleged as follows: That on 11.12.1994 the preceding night (Sunday) at 10 P.M. while he was sleeping after having food, Jetha Murmu (deceased) son of Late Sangram Murmu village Daharlangi and Hopna Hansda (accused) son of Late Damu Hansda of village Daharlangi came to his house in a state of heated exchanges and woke him up. He was suffering from fever. A small earthen lamp (dhibri) was lit in his house. Both of them asked the informant to mediate over their dispute. Upon this informant told them to come tomorrow. Hopna Hansda (accused) was demanding loan of Rs.20/- given to Jetha Murmu upon which Jetha Murmu (deceased) asked him to come along and he would pay it to him. Both started leaving his court-yard and informant followed them in his court-yard. Accused Hopna Hansda asked for Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- as interest over it, over which Jetha Murmu (deceased) refused to give the interest amount and stated that he would pay only Rs.20/-. This lead to more heated exchanges between the two and the informant saw Hopna Hansda (accused) took out a knife from his vest and inflicted an injury in Jetha Murmu's thigh, as a result of which he started bleeding. Informant took the dhibri (small earthen lamp) close to him and saw that Jetha Murmu had sustained injuries on his scrotum and blood was oozing out. Jetha Murmu immediately fell unconscious. Informant managed to put him on a cot but accused Hopna Hansda had fled immediately thereafter. Around within twenty minutes Jetha Murmu died. Informant took the dhibri (small earthen lamp) close to him and saw that Jetha Murmu had sustained injuries on his scrotum and blood was oozing out. Jetha Murmu immediately fell unconscious. Informant managed to put him on a cot but accused Hopna Hansda had fled immediately thereafter. Around within twenty minutes Jetha Murmu died. This incidence was witnessed by informant's wife Chhita Hansda daughter Maiku Murmu aged 25 years, son Jagan Murmu aged 22 years also. On hulla (shout) being raised villagers Nayan Tudu, Fulu Soren son of Dugu Soren, Gullu Murmu son of Kisun Murmu, Jitu Hansda and other villagers assembled to whom the incidence was narrated by informant. 4. The statement of the informant was recorded in presence of Nayan Tudu son of Sangram Tudu of village Daharlangi, which was read over and explained to him upon which he inscribed his left thumb impression. 5. On this fardbeyan Boarijore P.S. Case No. 125 of 1994 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Hopna Hansda (appellant herein). 6. Investigation commenced thereafter and on conclusion thereof, charge sheet bearing no.1 of 1995 dated 31.01.1995 was submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused/appellant herein. 7. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, Godda. Thereafter charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 06.06.1995 and were explained in Hindi to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus trial commenced. During the course of trial prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support and adduced six documentary evidence up to exhibit-6 namely; exhibit-1 postmortem report adduced by P.W.-4 Dr. Narendra Kumar, exhibit-2 and 2/1 signature of Thomas Soren and Nayan Tudu on the carbon copy of the inquest report exhibited by P.W.-7, exhibit 2/2 and 2/3 signature of Suraj Baskay and Nayan Tudu on the seizure list proved by P.W.-8 Surya Baskay, fardbeyan exhibit-3 was proved by P.W.-11 Birendra Prasad, investigating officer, the formal F.I.R. exhibit-4, carbon copy of inquest report exhibit-5 and the seizure list exhibit-6 were also proved by P.W.-11. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied his involvement and stated that he has been falsely implicated. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied his involvement and stated that he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness or documentary evidence was adduced in support of the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence on record and the submission of learned counsel for the parties the learned court of Sessions, Godda found the accused guilty of having committed the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, since in the opinion of the court the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Accordingly he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Vandana Sinha assisted by learned counsel Mr. P.K. Verma have inter alia, made the following submissions in support of their challenge to the judgment of conviction: Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the material evidence on record and more specifically the evidence of the informant P.W. 10. Apart from that she has placed the evidence of the informant's wife Chhita Hansda (P.W. 2) the deposition of the son of the informant Jagan Murmu (P.W. 6), P.W. 9 Janthar Soren, the evidence of the investigating officer P.W. 11 and also the deposition of the medical officer Dr. Narendra Kumar (P.W.-4) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jetha Murmu who had proved the post mortem report as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a bare comparison of the testimony of P.W. 10 with the fardbeyan being the First Information Report and the prosecution story narrated by him goes to show that there are substantial improvements in his case and it suffers from major contradictions. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of P.W. 10 at paragraph-1 which shows that he was not witness to the assault since he came upon hearing the shout of the victim Jetha after the assault. By that time the appellant had fled away. In his cross-examination at paragraph-5 on the other hand, he states that the heated exchanges were going on between the accused Hopna and the victim Jetha in his courtyard. Further at paragraph-6, he states that nobody went inside the house (kothari). He further states that since he was suffering from fever he was sleeping inside his house covered with a blanket. Further at paragraph-6, he states that nobody went inside the house (kothari). He further states that since he was suffering from fever he was sleeping inside his house covered with a blanket. This picture of the occurrence does not tally with his statement made in the fardbeyan where he has alleged that these two persons had come to him for mediation on a dispute between them and that in his presence the heated exchanges aggravated between the two. The accused took out a knife from his vest and inflicted injury on the thigh of the victim Jetha from which he started bleeding. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the place of occurrence and the question whether the informant had seen the occurrence from his own eyes are rendered doubtful on comparison of the statement of informant in the fardbeyan and his testimony during trial. At this juncture learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of this Court to the medical evidence and the post mortem report (Exhibit-1) proved by P.W. 4, Dr. Narendra Kumar. She submits that the doctor did not find any injury on the scrotum of the accused nor on the thigh as alleged by the informant P.W. 1. The injuries were found in the lower part of abdominal cavity. This ocular testimony of the informant stands however discredited by the medical evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has in particular referred to the deposition of P.W. 2, wife of the informant Smt. Chhita Hansda who at paragraph-2 states that the accused and the deceased both had taken liquor and had chicken in her courtyard and that they were fighting for Rs. 20/- when her husband who was ill was sleeping inside the house and from inside only he told them to come tomorrow when he would undertake panchayati between them. She states further in her cross-examination that these two, accused and deceased has remained in her courtyard for one hour while eating and drinking and she had fallen asleep near the dhaba and the fire place. She further states that she woke up when the two started fighting. Her statement does not corroborate the statement of the informant P.W. 10 made during trial so far as the place of occurrence is concerned. Her statement also shows that that the informant was sleeping inside and was not witness to the occurrence. She further states that she woke up when the two started fighting. Her statement does not corroborate the statement of the informant P.W. 10 made during trial so far as the place of occurrence is concerned. Her statement also shows that that the informant was sleeping inside and was not witness to the occurrence. Therefore P.W. 10 and P.W. 2 both contradict each other. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the daughter of the informant Smt. Maiku Murmu who the informant claims to be present at the time of occurrence in the house has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case on being examined as P.W. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of this court to the statement of P.W. 6 Jagan Murmu son of the informant who was also reported to be present at the place of occurrence as per the fardbeyan. His statement at paragraph-1 shows that the accused Hopna and one Janthar and the P.W. 6 were having chicken and consuming liquor amongst themselves in the house at around 10:00 and that the victim Jetha came alone. Thereafter the quarrel ensued between the accused Hopna and the victim Jetha and they went outside their house quarrelling. He also however referred to the demand of Rs. 30/- by Hopna upon which the deceased Jetha gave is willingness to pay Rs. 20/- only and that Hopna inflicted a knife injury near the scrotum of the victim which lead to his death. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness has further stated at paragraph-3 that he, Hopna and Janthar were having liquor since evening and that Hopna and Janthar were drunk. Reference is made to his statement at paragraph-4 of his cross-examination where he states that Hopna, Jetha and Janthar moved out of his house after consuming liquor at 10:00 and then P.W. 6 had gone for sleep. He further states at paragraph-5 of his cross-examination that upon hearing the shouts of Jetha he came outside and saw Jetha lying down and alive asking for water. By that time number of villagers had also arrived. At paragraph-7 of his cross-examination this witness has stated that the mother of accused Hopna has instituted a case upon the father (informant) and mother (P.W.-2) of the P.W.-6 Jagan Murmu. By that time number of villagers had also arrived. At paragraph-7 of his cross-examination this witness has stated that the mother of accused Hopna has instituted a case upon the father (informant) and mother (P.W.-2) of the P.W.-6 Jagan Murmu. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W. 9 Janthar Soren and submitted that his testimony clearly shows that accused Hopna Hansda, Jagan Murmu (P.W. 6) and Janthar Soren (P.W. 9) were eating and drinking at the dhaba of the pradhan (P.W. 10) informant and then Jetha came there. While he, Hopna and P.W. 6 started leaving for their houses the quarrel between the deceased Jetha and accused Hopna started on the issue of Rs. 20/- given on loan by Hopna Hansda who was asking for interest over it, which Jetha denied. Then a free fight ensued between the accused and the victim Jetha and P.W. 9 tried to separate them but he also got an injury on his nose by the elbow of accused Hopna as a result of which he started bleeding severely. Thereafter Hopna inflicted an injury on the victim Jetha by knife upon which he fell down and died. Hopna fled away. He further stated at paragraph-6 that he bleed about a bowl of blood on account of his injury on nose and covered his mouth by both his hands and when he got up he has seen Jetha who had an injury on the scrotum. His testimony has been compared with the testimony of P.W. 6 Jagan Murma and also the testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-10 informant, by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that a third angle to the entire manner of occurrence has been projected by this witness. As such, the prosecution story is not consistent and different prosecution witnesses though claim to be the eye-witnesses have projected the manner of occurrence in different ways. The prosecution case therefore suffers from serious contradictions and inconsistencies which create a doubt about their whole case. As such, the prosecution story is not consistent and different prosecution witnesses though claim to be the eye-witnesses have projected the manner of occurrence in different ways. The prosecution case therefore suffers from serious contradictions and inconsistencies which create a doubt about their whole case. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken us to the evidence of P.W. 4 as noted hereinabove to show that the injuries alleged on behalf of the informant and other prosecution witnesses such as P.W. 6, P.W. 9 also do not stand corroborated by the statement of the P.W. 4 who conducted the post mortem on the dead body and proved the report as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the weapon of assault, the knife was also not seized by the investigating officer nor produced during trial. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the prosecution evidence learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 10. In the alternative learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the case of the prosecution is treated to be true assumingly, it does not fall within the offence of murder as defined under Section 300 thirdly as the nature of injury, the single assault and the resultant injury in the lower abdomen cavity of the victim do not make out an intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the victim by inflicting such an injury which in an ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. She submits that rather, the case of the appellant falls under exception 4 of Section 300 IPC since the evidence on record fairly suggests that there was a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased and in the heat of the passion, without taking any undue advantage, a single injury by knife was inflicted by the accused which was not repeated and was also not on the vital part of the body of the victim. As such, the appellant who has undergone custody for nine years seven months and odd days till he was granted bail by this Court during pendency of the appeal on 03.08.2004 his sentence may be modified under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and he be released on the basis of the period of custody undergone. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Gouri Shankar Prasad submits that the case of the prosecution is full proof, as the conviction recorded by learned trial court is based upon the evidence available on record. He has referred to the statement of P.W. 10 informant in whose house the accused and the deceased both had come for a panchayati and the assault also took place in his house as narrated through the mouth of the informant in the fardbeyan and supported by his wife P.W. 2, his son P.W. 6 as well. These prosecution witnesses are independent and do not have any motive to implicate the accused for the crime since they are not related to the deceased. The prosecution has been consistent in its case as all these prosecution witnesses P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 have stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the question of return of a loan of Rs.20/- demanded by the accused when the deceased denied to pay any interest of Rs.10/- over it. The injury has been described by the informant and P.W. 6 as also P.W. 9 on the thigh/scrotum i.e. the lower part of the body of the deceased which is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 4, who has found injuries in the lower abdominal cavity of the deceased. The injury were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. It cannot be lost sight of that it was 10:00 in the night and there was only small earthen lamp (dhibri) in which the occurrence was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses therefore any minor discrepancies in describing the occurrence should not be made out of proportion to throw out the entire prosecution case itself. Upon consideration of the entirety of evidence on record the appellant has not been able to puncture any loopholes in the prosecution case to be entitled to benefit of doubt. As such the appeal is without merit and fit to be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State at length and also gone through the entire material evidence, also relied upon by them. We have perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State at length and also gone through the entire material evidence, also relied upon by them. We have perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court. Upon scanning of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely informant P.W. 10, his wife P.W. 2 Smt. Chhita Hansda, P.W. 6 Jagan Murmu, the son of informant and P.W. 9 Janthar Soren, we find the following features of the prosecution case: That the accused Hopna Hansda and the victim Jetha Murmu both were present at the house of the informant in the night on 11.12.1994 around 10.00 PM. They had a fight amongst themselves on the question of return of Rs.20/- + interest of Rs.10/- as demanded by the accused Hopna Hansda from the victim Jetha Murmu given as a loan earlier. Jetha Murmu was not inclined to pay the interest of Rs.10/- over and above the original loan amount of Rs.20/- and this resulted in a serious heated exchange between the two and on being infuriated the accused took out a knife from his possession and inflicted an injury around his scrotum/thigh as a result of such injury the victim Jetha Murmu died within no time. P.W. 10 has described it as within 20 minutes while the other prosecution witnesses have also stated in a manner that the death occurred soon immediately thereafter. Statement of P.W. 2, wife when read in entirety in conjunction with the statement of P.W. 10 and P.W. 9 show that accused Hopna Hansda was there at the place of occurrence and that accused Hopna was also consuming liquor. The son of the informant P.W. 6 was also consuming liquor with him at the dhaba of the informant and that the informant who was ill was inside the house trying to sleep. The informant was a Pradhan of the village and naturally, the accused and the deceased had come to him for panchayati over the instant dispute regarding return of loan to the accused Hopna by the deceased Jetha Murmu. The informant was a Pradhan of the village and naturally, the accused and the deceased had come to him for panchayati over the instant dispute regarding return of loan to the accused Hopna by the deceased Jetha Murmu. The inquest report which has been proved as Exhibit- 5 shows that the dead body was also found at the house of the informant Chono Murmu (P.W. 10) and the injury as per column 5 of the inquest report is shown around the scrotum of the victim by a sharp cutting weapon. The place of occurrence is also not in doubt as described by the ocular witness. All these read together in entirety lead us to an opinion that the incidence occurred on the night of 11.12.1994 at the house of the informant. P.W. 10 who is a Pradhan, on account of a dispute of return of loan between the accused and the deceased and that the deceased sustained injuries on the lower part of his abdomen/scrotum which resulted in his death due to shock and haemorrhage immediately thereafter. Evidence of P.W. 10, P.W. 2, P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 if read together also do not leave room of doubt that the fight was between the accused Hopna Hansda and the deceased Jetha Murmu and that one injury by knife was also inflicted by the accused Hopna Hansda. Minor consistencies in the statement of these prosecution witnesses so far as the exact place on which the assault took place, the time span of fight between the two etc. are not of such significance which would persuade us to throw out the entire prosecution case in toto. The evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Narendra Kumar who has proved the post mortem report as Exhibit-1 though shows that there was no injury on the scrotum or thigh of the accused but he stated that on dissection of the abdominal lower part showed that urinary bladder was ruptured and full of blood and blood clots and that major blood vessels like left fenural artery and blood vessels in lower part of the abdomen were ruptured. Cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injury and time since death was within 48 hours. The post mortem examination was conducted on 12.12.1994 itself at 12.30 P.M., that also within 24 hours of the occurrence. Cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injury and time since death was within 48 hours. The post mortem examination was conducted on 12.12.1994 itself at 12.30 P.M., that also within 24 hours of the occurrence. This medical evidence therefore also shows that the injuries were sustained in the lower abdominal cavity of the victim on account of such assault though the ocular testimony indicates that the injury was inflicted around the scrotum. However injury in the lower abdominal cavity as found by P.W. 4 shows sufficient bleeding which was seen by the ocular witness in and around the scrotum of the deceased. That is how they have described the occurrence. Much leeway on this point can also not be taken scored of by the appellant. We also do not lose sight of the fact that the incidence was witnesses in a faint light of a dhibri (small earthen lamp) by these witnesses. 13. On consideration of the material evidence on record therefore we agree with the findings of the learned trial court that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. However on the alternative prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant, we find from the evidence on record that the accused/appellant had been engaged with a heated exchange over a dispute regarding the return of loan with the deceased of Rs.30/- as demanded by him and the deceased was willing to give him Rs.20/- only. P.W. 9 has also described the fight in further detail saying that the two of them indulged in free fight and when P.W. 9 tried to intervene, he also sustained an injury on his nose causing bleeding by the elbow of the accused Hopna Hansda. Therefore appears that during sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the accused took out a knife from his vest and inflicted a single injury and that too on the lower abdomen/scrotum of the victim which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Therefore appears that during sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the accused took out a knife from his vest and inflicted a single injury and that too on the lower abdomen/scrotum of the victim which unfortunately proved to be fatal. The accused did not take any undue advantage to search for a weapon to assault the victim at that point of time neither was there any gap of time in the infliction of the injury with the heated exchange of free fight between them which could have given the accused sufficient time to cool down or remunerate and to plan the assault. The accused does not appear to bear an intention to kill the victim Jetha Murmu as the assault was not committed on any vital part of the body such as chest or head, neck etc. which in ordinary course of circumstances could lead to death. The injury as found by the medical evidence and also testified through the ocular testimony were in the lower part of the abdomen and similar in nature but resulted in death of the deceased. 14. As such we are inclined to accept the alternative plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to benefit of exception 4 under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, his conviction for murder under section 302 of the IPC is modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life is modified to the period of custody already undergone, since the appellant has served custody about nine years seven months and odd days. 15. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is modified in the aforesaid manner. The appeal is partly allowed. 16. Appellant is already on bail, he stands discharged of the liability of the bail bonds. Let the lower court record be sent down to the court concerned.