SANKAR NARAYAN NANDI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

(2.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dtd. 13/7/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 342/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302 IPC for killing his mother with a sharp edged weapon ( Bothi Dao) which is used for cutting vegetables, fish etc.

(3.) The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant's challenge to the impugned judgment is firstly on the ground that the appellant did not kill his mother and in this respect, he has relied upon the explanation/answers given by the appellant in his examination under Sec. 313 CrPC to question numbers 11, 12 & 15. The alternative challenge made by the appellant to the impugned judgment is that, even though the evidence of PWs- 5 & 7 appears to prove the fact that the appellant had killed his mother, the conviction of the appellant could not have been done under Sec. 302 IPC, inasmuch as, there was no premeditation and/or intention to kill his mother. The act of killing his mother had been made due to a grave and sudden provocation under the influence of alcohol and as Exception-4 to Sec. 300 IPC was attracted to the facts of the case, the charge under Sec. 302 IPC should be altered to Sec. 304 Part-II IPC, as at best, the conviction could only have been made under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC. He thus submits that when the evidence shows that the death of the mother was due to a grave and sudden provocation, which resulted in a fight between the appellant and PW-7 (brother of the deceased), resulting in the death of the mother, the complete chain of events could have only led to the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 304 Part-II and not under Sec. 302 IPC.