NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been heard on merits at the orders stage with the consent of both sides. Learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi has convicted appellant Narain for offence under section 304 part I Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default on payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the appellant Narain and deceased Manna were step brothers, borne from the same mother Smt. Patu PW 6. Manna and Narain resided separately in village Danpura but the houses of both of them were in vicinity of each other. Appellant Narain was accustomed to take liquor while deceased Manna was a religious minded person. On 24.2-91 at about 8 PM appellant Narain was drinking at his house, while deceased Manna was busy in a community prayer at his house. At about 9 PM PW 6 Smt. Patu went to the house of Manna. After some time appellant Narain come there in a drunken state upon which Narain and Manna quarrelled with each other. Narain bad a "gupti" (a long knife). He dealt gupti blow on the person of Manna. The incident was also witnessed by PW 1 Methi and certain other persons and report of the incident was duly lodged and due investigation took place. The appellant was arrested and gupti was recovered at the instance of the appellant. After due trial learned trial Judge found aforesaid facts established and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

(3.) In the present appeal learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the correctness and propriety of the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 191 (i) Penal Code but submits that appellant was a young boy of about 18 or 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. The appellant was arrested on 26-2-91 and since then be is behind bars. The incident took place all of sudden without any premeditation. There was no previous enmity. Looking to the young age of the appellant ends of justice would be served if I e is let of on the sentenced already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Pooran Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 page 1628 , where in the sentence passed on the appellant, was reduced to that already undergone on the ground of his youth, In that case the appellant was 18 or 19 years of age.