Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant Ram Kumar. Being aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court dated 13th December, 2007, by which the learned trial Court convicted the respondent No.2 accused Indraj under Section 304 Part-II, IPC instead of Section 302, IPC, and has sentenced the accused to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment and the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The respondent No.2 accused also has been convicted for the charge under Sections 324 and 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo two and half years imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 324 IPC and to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 323, IPC.
(2.) The complainant's contention is that the respondent No.2 should have been convicted for charge under Section 302, IPC. The learned trial Court failed to consider the relevant facts that the accused set over the chest of the victim and inflicted severe injuries which could have been inflicted only with clear intention to kill the victim. The trial Court committed wrong by holding that there was no intention of the accused of eliminating and killing the victim.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Indraj pointed out that prosecution's own case is that incident happened because of some money transaction and the victim himself came to the house of the accused .The accused came out from his house without having any weapon with him, not even a lathi. It appears that in talking about the return of the money, heat generated and and the accused might not have controlled himself and inflicted injury by fists. The Trial Court's refused to accept the prosecution case that even victim was hit by legs.;