Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 96 of 1999(R) Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.1999 (sentence passed on 26.03.1999) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 705/93. Pelu Peter @ Petar Kullu, S/o Late Paulus Kullu, R/o Garhatoli, Shanti Nagar, P.S. Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi. ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … Respondent ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Dev, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ---- CAV on : 13/12/2024 Pronounced on: 14/01/2025 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-03-1999 (sentence passed on 26- 03-1999) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 705/93 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Binod Munda recorded on 22-03-1993 in which it has been alleged that he was standing near his house in the morning when he saw Gunuwa Munda, who was his brother quarrelling with Pelu Peter(appellant) and as he rushed to separate them, Pelu Peter took out a knife and stabbed his brother on the abdomen and thereafter fled away. The brother of the informant fell on the ground and as the informant tried to lift him up, he found his brother having already expired. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sadar P.S. Case No. 29/93 2 | P a g e was instituted under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 705/93. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Samir Munda has proved his signature upon the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. P.W.2 Binod Munda is the informant who has stated that on 22-03-1993 at 8:30AM, his brother Gunuwa Munda was conversing with Pelu Peter when all of a sudden, Pelu Peter took out a knife and stabbed Gunuwa Munda on his abdomen. Pelu Peter fled away after committing the assault and he was chased by him and his injured brother and at a distance of 20 feet, his brother fell down and died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the area was being frequented by several persons. He could not shout as he was numb with shock. His brother and Pelu Peter were having a normal conversation initially and later it transformed itself into a quarrel. The accused had given only one stab blow upon the deceased. He does not have any previous enmity with Pelu Peter. P.W.3 Mahendra Prasad Tiwari has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He was given the charge of investigation after which he had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained the post-mortem report after which he had submitted charge sheet against the accused. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. The witness Samir Munda had stated that there was enmity between Gunuwa Munda and Pelu Peter. P.W.4 Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu was posted as a Medical Officer in 3 | P a g e the Department of Forensic Medicine, R.M.C.H., Ranchi and on 22- 03-93, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gunuwa Munda and had found the following: (i) Stab wound- The knife was in the position. After removal of the knife the stab wound measured 2¼cm x 1¼cm x 11cm on the right abdomen front situated 8cm right to the mid line and parallel to umbilicus, that is, at the level of umbilicus. The weapon passed through abdominal wall, perforated the small intestine and large intestine (ascending column) mesentery and punctured the descending aorta. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the abdominal cavity. The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the above noted stab injury. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Rahul Dev, learned amicus curiae that the evidence of P.W.2 has remained uncorroborated and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same. An alternative submission has been advanced that if the Court comes to a conclusion that it was the appellant who had stabbed the deceased, the said act would come within the realm of Section 304 Part II IPC as one stab wound was inflicted and which also was the aftermath of a quarrel which had ensued between the appellant and the deceased. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant was armed with a knife which would show the intention of the appellant to do away with the life of Gunuwa Munda. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 9. A routine conversation between Gunuwa Munda and the appellant sprinkled with smiles and vibrancy soon transformed into a quarrel and in the ensuing heated conversation, the appellant is alleged to have knifed Gunuwa Munda on his abdomen which resulted in his death. P.W.2 is the informant and the only eyewitness to the 4 | P a g e occurrence whose evidence is categorical to the effect that it was the appellant who had stabbed his brother. The defence has failed to elicit any contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 which would cast a cloud of suspicion over such evidence. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to establish that it was the appellant whose infliction of a stab wound resulted in the death of Gunuwa Munda. 10. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned amicus in support of his alternative argument that, at best a case under Section 304 Part II IPC is made out against the appellant, has referred to the case of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 6 SCC 122, wherein it has been held as follows: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. By applying the above tests, the High Court has found that two of the ingredients are absent so as to bring the case of the appellant under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The High Court has found that the act of picking up a “saria” and compressing forcefully the neck of his wife by the appellant, can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be an act committed in a heat of passion. Further it is held that, the manner in which the appellant compressed his wife’s neck also depicts an act of extreme cruelty. 17. From the evidence on record it is clear that the incident occurred in a sudden fight and there was no premeditation. Even the primary witness PW 7, the son of the accused and deceased, has deposed that he had seen the appellant strangulating his mother, deceased, with the “saria” when she had taken out some money from the appellant’s wallet. It is not as if “saria” was brought in a pre-planned way to murder the wife of the appellant. The iron rod (saria) was picked up at the spur of the moment at the time of incident and used to compress the neck forcefully. In that view of the matter it is nothing but an act committed by the appellant in a heat of passion. Further, the High Court has not given the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC on the ground that the appellant compressed his wife’s neck also depicts an act of extreme cruelty. Having regard to the nature and manner of incident it cannot be said that the act of the appellant was extremely cruel. Unless it is barbaric, torturous and brutal, strangulation of the appellant’s wife cannot be said to be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.” 11. The facts and circumstances of the present case reveal that the 5 | P a g e act of the appellant stabbing the deceased was at the heat of the moment due to a heated argument which had ensued between them and only a single knife blow was inflicted upon the deceased. The ingredients constituting Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC are fully prevalent in the present case which fact has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. The offence, therefore, alleged against the appellant would come within the purview of Section 304 Part I IPC. 12. We, therefore, on the basis of what has been discussed above, modify the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant had remained in custody for a period of 7 years and, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is also modified to the period already undergone by him in custody. 13. This appeal is disposed of with the modification in the conviction and the consequent sentence as noted by us above. 14. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. 15. Before parting with this judgment, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Rahul Dev, learned amicus curiae and we direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to ensure that the stipulated fees are extended to Mr. Rahul Dev within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.