Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) APPELLANT Bijay Tudu (hereinafter to be referred as 'accused') after suffering conviction for the charge of Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the said charge vide impugned judgment/order dated 29.3.2003/31 -3 -2003 has preferred the instant statutory appeal for setting aside of the impugned judgment. At the very outset, it has been brought to our notice by Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the accused, that the accused by now has already undergone few months less than 14 years, which statement is not controverted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.
(2.) MR . Kumar otherwise does not join the issue so far as merits of the present appeal is concerned and prays for diluting the conviction from Sections 302, IPC to 304, Part -II, IPC or at the most 304, Part -I, IPC. In order to strengthen his submission, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case as originally set up and put forth during the trial is that Chhutar Marandi alias Ruyel Marandi, the deceased herein, along with his wife Smt. Sona Baskey (first informant) had gone to the house of his in -laws in connection with death of his mother -in -law and when wife of the deceased was occupied in religious function (Shradh) at her mother's house and the deceased was incidentally out of the house, the deceased saw that the accused and his wife Smt. Fulmani Murmu were fighting with each other when the deceased intervened between them and at that point of time the accused who was allegedly armed with Hasua (a sharp cutting weapon) gave one injury to deceased, which landed on his neck. The occurrence was witnessed by one Deo Nath Baskey aged 12/13 years, who informed Smt. Sona Baskey of the occurrence who ultimately reported the matter to the police.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that from entirety of the facts, as projected by the prosecution, it is a case which would not fall within the mischief of Section 302, IPC at least, therefore, the conviction for the said charge as already recorded by the learned trial Court deserves to be diluted.;