(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent -State. Perused the records.
(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner (A1) and Accused Nos.2 to 4 were working in a Mutton and Chicken Shop- National Chicken Poultry belonging to Accused No.1. It is alleged that, on the intervening night of 4/5.06.2019, the deceased by name Mohammed Sibgath has worked whole night hours with CW.4-Sadiq Ahmed in the said Mutton and Chicken Shop, as the next day ie. 05.06.2019 was Ramzan Festival and next day also he continued his work. On 05.06.2019 when the deceased was in the shop, at about 12.30 p.m., this petitioner (A1) and other accused persons picked up quarrel in front of the said Mutton Shop with regard to distribution of tips among themselves. When the deceased intervened to resolve the quarrel, Accused No.1 and other accused persons being enraged themselves against the deceased, one of the other accused caught hold the deceased and this petitioner (A1) assaulted him with a knife on his right thigh and caused severe bleeding injury. Though the injured was shifted to Victoria Hospital, he was not survived and he died due to heavy bleeding.
(3.) Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, Accused No.1 though assaulted the deceased with a deadly weapon like knife, but he has not selected any vital part of the body of the deceased. Apart from that, the quarrel took place among Accused Nos. 1 to 4 themselves, but, when the deceased intervened to resolve the dispute, Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased. At present it is not forthcoming from the records that, 'whether Accused No.1 had any intention to kill the deceased with the alleged knife or whether such blow fell on his thigh and it caused the death of the deceased'. These are the factual aspects that have to be established during the course of full-dressed trial. Whether the offence falls under Section 302 or 304 Part-I or II of IPC is also to be thrashed-out during the course of full-dressed trial.