PURANDAR MIRDHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code for committing murder of one Balaram Bhoi and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that in the morning of 11.12.1992 the deceased had a quarrel with his son (P.W. 1) and at that point of time the Appellant intervened and told the deceased as to why he was quarrelling with a grown up boy. Since the deceased did not listen to him a quarrel ensued between the Appellant and the deceased but one Dayalal Mirdha separated them and thereafter both of them left the place. Thereafter at 5 O' clock in the afternoon on the same day the deceased came back to the village and started quarrelling with the Appellant. When the Appellant protested he was also abused by the deceased and it is alleged that the Appellant threatened the deceased to cut him into pieces. To this statement of the Appellant, the deceased took exception and challenged him as a result of which the Appellant ran to a place called Bailichuan, brought out a knife and ran towards the deceased to assault. At that time one Bhakta Mirdha, P.W. 4 tried to stop the Appellant. However, the Appellant escaped and assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down unconscious. Some other villagers present at the spot chased the Appellant, but the Appellant ran away from the place. On the basis of such allegation made in the FIR, the case was registered for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and after investigation, charge -sheet was submitted for commission of the said offence.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenged the findings of the trial court on the ground that the prosecution having admitted that there was quarrel in the morning which gave rise to a grave and sudden provocation between the Appellant and the deceased in the afternoon and in course of such quarrel, the Appellant brought out a knife and stabbed the deceased, the trial court could not have convicted the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code as at the spur of the moment there was a grave and sudden provocation at the instance of the deceased which resulted in commission of the offence and there was absolutely no intention to cause death of the deceased. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that though there is consistent evidence that the Appellant dealt one blow on the deceased by means of a knife, the post mortem report indicates that apart from an injury on the chest, there is another grievous injury on the body of the deceased which has remained unexplained. On the basis of the above, the learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution having not come in clean hands, the same should be disbelieved. The learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the eye witnesses to the occurrence are consistent in their statements that the Appellant stabbed the deceased by means of a knife on his chest and that injury on the chest alone was sufficient to cause death. Therefore, non -explanation of any other injury is not material for the purpose of the case. He also submitted that the Appellant having said that he would kill the deceased, it cannot be said that there was no intention to cause death.