STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARAT CHANDAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THIS Government Appeal is filed challenging the order of acquittal under Section 302 IPC and alternatively challenging the sentence of R.I. for one year imposed on the accused -respondent for his conviction under Section 304 -I of IPC.

(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, after effecting partition between his sons and himself, Sadhu Charan Giri (P.W.7) remained with the younger son, Sisir. Accused is the elder son. Land retained by P.W.7 in his share was also divided by him between the two sons and each of them were directed to give 6 pouties of paddy every year. On the date of occurrence, at about 3.00 P.M., P.W.7 asked the accused, who was then moving out of the house, to make payment of the paddy. Accused refused to pay and asked to call the Village Punch. On such reply of the accused his deceased mother reacted and made sarcastic comment. That led to altercation between the mother and the son, i.e., the deceased and the accused and in feat of annoyance accused came to the verandah where the deceased was sitting inside the residential premises of his younger brother. He pulled out the katari, M.O.III, which had been kept under roof (as the usual practice in the villages) and dealt one blow, which was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. P.W.6, Tarulata Giri, being the brothers wife of the accused and Sadhu Charan Giri, the father of the accused were the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. In trial they supported the prosecution. P.W.3, Udayanath Giri, the agnatic uncle of the accused and P.W.2, a neighbour of the occurrence premises supported the prosecution about the extra judicial confession made by the accused. P.W.1, the informant and P.W.9 are the cousins of the accused. They, however, did not support the prosecution on extra judicial confession made by the accused. P.W.5, the doctor who conducted post -mortem examination as per report, Ext.7 and identified the M.O.III, as the weapon of offence, also opined that homicidal death of the deceased was due to single blow by a sharp cutting weapon. P.W.4 was a witness to the seizure of incriminating articles including the blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased, etc., He proved the seizure lists, Exts.2 to 5. The serological report records the finding of human blood of "A" group, being present on the weapon of offence wearing apparels of the deceased and wearing apparels of the accused. P.W.10 was the Investigating Officer of the case. On analysis of such evidence trial Court recorded finding that deceased suffered homicidal death and accused is the author of that crime. After so determining, learned Sessions Judge considered the argument of both the parties and held that it is because of the provocation given by the deceased by making sarcastic comment that accused committed the offence having lost his self -control and therefore the offence committed by him does not amount to murder but it amounts to culpable homicide punishable under first part of the offence under Section 304 IPC.