The Gauhati High Court has upheld the punishment of a policeman convicted for the murder his colleague over a card game in 2018, observing his “behaviour and demeanour” was that of a guilty person.A bench of Justices Michael Zothankuma and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma was hearing the plea of the policeman that it was a “sudden and grave provocation” over a card game. The court, however, rejected the claim, noting that there was enough “cooling off” period between the game and the murder.The May 26 order read that the, “behavior and demeanor of the appellant appeared to be that of guilty person when everyone else in the barrack and from outside came into the barrack and had seen the injured person (the victim).” Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed that the evidence in the present case did not indicate that any sudden fight had occurred between the accused and the victim.Also read | ‘Concerns national security’: Gauhati High Court denies bail to man who ‘harboured’ Bangladeshi terrorist‘Policeman murders colleague’The platoon commander (a senior officer who is responsible for leading a sub-division of soldiers) of the victim and the accused had filed an FIR on September 28, 2017.The FIR stated that on some personal issues an altercation took place between the accused and the victim.This altercation has been explained by the counsel for the accused as that a group of policemen including the victim and the accused had been playing cards on the night of September 27, 2017, when a quarrel began between them.On hearing the quarrel, the platoon commander went and told them to go and sleep in their own beds. The commander then went to sleep himself.After about 10-15 minutes, the constable on guard duty called him and informed that the accused and the victim were fighting and that the victim had fallen on his bed.When he reached the place of occurrence the commander saw the victim lying on his bed in a pool of blood and also noticed an injury on the upper left chest of the victim, which appeared to be caused by a knife.Upon seeing the victim in a critical condition, he immediately called the ambulance and then the in charge of the police outpost.The platoon commander was informed by the hospital around 3.15 am that the victim had passed away.On searching the barrack and nearby place, a blood-stained knife, generally used by the victim was found which was later handed over to the police in-charge.Following the FIR, a case was registered at the police station, and the accused was convicted under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of IPC by the trial court for having murdered his police colleague with a knife.The accused then approached the high court in appeal against the said conviction.‘Grave and sudden provocation’Advocates B Baruah and SD Deka appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that there was no proof that the accused had stabbed and killed the victim.He further argued that if it was assumed that the accused had actually committed the crime, the exception of ‘grave and sudden provocation’ would be attracted as the quarrel between the accused and the victim had escalated into a fight, ultimately leading to death of the victim.It was further urged that the act of the accused, in the alternate scenario, had to be considered to be unintentional, as there was no planning or intention to kill on the part of the accused, at the time when they started playing cards.Lately, it was contended that in accordance with the above, Section 302 IPC would not be applicable and at best, the accused could be convicted under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) IPC.Story continues below this ad‘Conviction not incorrect’Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) RR Kaushik argued on behalf of the state that no of the exceptions were attracted to the case and despite the fact that there no planning or intention to kill the victim initially, the intention grew during the course of the quarrel that had taken place between the accused and the victim.The learned APP also submitted that the contention of the accused being deprived of his self-control did not arise, as the act of killing had taken place a few hours after their quarrel had been stopped and they had been directed to go to sleep.He further urged that the intention to kill could be inferred from the accused using a weapon to cause bodily harm to the victim, by stabbing him in a vital part of the body while he was asleep and that the conviction of the accused was not incorrect.Also read | 10-year suspension after murder charge: Why court reinstated PWD employee, ordered back wages‘No reason to arrive at a different conclusion’The Gauhati High Court stated that they had not found any reason to arrive at a different conclusion than the fact that it was the accused who had stabbed the victim with a knife.Story continues below this adIt was also observed by the court that according to the facts that were stated regarding the fateful night, the behavior and demeanor of the accused appeared to be that of a guilty person when everyone else in the barrack had seen him near the injured person.As per the court, facts like that the victim and the accused again started quarreling later in the night at around 12.30- 1.00 am and during the quarrel the victim screamed “I am dying” have led them to inferring that there was no other possible conclusion apart from accused having stabbed the victim.On the ground of accused seeking the defense of the plea of ‘grave and sudden provocation’ the court noted that the evidence did not indicate that any sudden fight had occurred between the parties despite the fact that there had indeed been a quarrel, hence it was held that there was “sufficient time for the parties to cool down.”The court was of the perspective that the ingredients for ‘grave and sudden provocation’ had not been made out and that “the Prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the act of the accused”.