UPENDRA MAHAKUD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the order of conviction recorded against him by the Court of Session under S. 302 of the Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life after accepting the case of the prosecution that a quarrel on the basis of the evidence of Kanaka Dei (P. W. 6), the daughter of the deceased, who had been examined as a witness to the occurrence, the evidence of three co-villagers (P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8) staying in the same Labour Colony with the appellant and the deceased about the extrajudicial confession of the appellant and the finding of human blood in the shirt (M: O. I.) and the half pant (M. O. II) which had been worn by the appellant and in the knife (M. O. III) which he had been holding and had been used as the weapon of attack and the nail clippings of the appellant collected by the doctor (P. W. 9) besides the evidence of the doctor who had conducted the autopsy as per the post-mortem report (Ex.4) and had opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The trial court did not accept the version of P. W. 5, the sister of the appellant and the widow of the deceased, who had been put leading questions by the prosecution under S. 154 of the Evidence Act, that the deceased not only quarrelled with her and the appellant but had even assaulted both of them by a lathi.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Das has contended that the prosecution evidence was unworthy of credence and could not sustain the order of conviction. He has submitted that regard being had to the facts of the case and the unfortunate and painful circumstances in which the appellant had killed his own brother-in-law making his sister a widow in the process, the appellant's act would be covered by both Exceptions 1 and 4 of S.300 of the Code. Mr.Panigrahi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has contended that none of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant can prevail.

(3.) The sole witness to the occurrence who had supported the case of the prosecution was the daughter of the deceased. She had given a true and trustworthy version about the occurrence which found sufficient support in other evidence. According to this girl, the deceased picked up a quarrel with his wife (P. W.5), the appellant's sister, on the night of the occurrence and at that time, the appellant came and challenged the deceased as to why he assaulted his (appellant's) sister and there ensued a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and in the midst of the quarrel, the appellant dealt a blow with the knife (M. O. III) which hit the neck of the deceased and thereafter another blow on the chest of the deceased. Thereafter the appellant dragged the deceased and threw him in front of his house. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The appellant was then wearing M. Os. I and II which had been stained with blood. Nothing had been brought out in her evidence by the defence to discredit her testimony.