IMPORTANT POINT
In a criminal trial, whole of evidence in-chief and cross examination are to be read together for correct appreciation to find out the truth therefrom.

JUDGMENT

S. Haque, J. -Sukra Kharia, father of accused Badhoa Kharia, was murdered in the night of 19.3.1983 inside his house. The accused faced the trial for the charge of killing his father. He pleaded not guilty.

2. Prosecution adduced two types of evidence, namely, (1) direct evidence of P. W. 3 Smt. Rukni Kharia, mother of the accused and (2) evidence of three witnesses-P.W. 2 Kumar Nag, P.W. 4 Etowa Kharia and P.W. 5 Mohesh Nayak on the fact of extra judicial confession of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge relied on these evidence and convicted the accused under section 302 of the I.P.C. Hence this appeal by accused Badhna Kharia from Jail.

3. There was no dispute on the fact of death of Sukra Kharia in the night of 19.3.1983 as a result of injuries sustained. Dr. D. Ahmed, A.S.I., Bordubi, Police Station held inquest over the dead body on 20.3.1983. Ext. 2 was the inquest report. Cut injuries over neck and head were found and recorded in that report. Dr. M.N. Gogoi (P. W. 1) held post mortem examination on the dead body of Sukra Kharia and found two injuries as follows:

(1) One incised wound, size 7 cm. x 3 cm. in the middle part of the right side of the neck cutting the skin muscles, blood, vessels, nerves and 3rd curvical vertebra.

(2) One incised wound 8 cm. x 3 cm. In the left side of the occipital region of the scalp cutting the bone completely along with the mambrane and the brain.

The injuries were found to be ante-mortem and the Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained and that the injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The Doctor also opined that both the injuries were individually sufficient to cause death. Considering the nature of the injuries over the vital parts of the body, we fully agree with the opinion of the Doctor. It was proved that Sukra Kharia died as a result of injuries sustained in the night of 19.3.1983.

4. There was no dispute on thy fact that deceased Sukra Kharia his wife Smt. Rukni Kharia and their son accused Badhna Kharia lived together in one house and were present in the house in the night of occurrence. Smt. Rukni (P.W. 3) deposed before the trial Court as an eye witness of the occurrence. Her evidence-in chief as well as the cross examination were very precise. She deposed as follows:

In examination in chief-"At the time of occurrence, my husband, my son (accused) and I were present. Following an altercation between father and son on Saturday night, accused Badhna cut his father with a dao. I tried to resist. But the son felled the father by cutting. I fled out of fear. I spent the night outside. When I came in the morning, I found cut wounds on the neck and head of my husband."

In Cross examination-"When they started quarreling, I went out. I did not go to call in people. I was watching. The accused was carrying a dao. I went out when their quarrel intensified out of fear. Badhna stayed on and cut his father.

Smt. Rukni Kharia was a rustic unsophisticated woman deposing as eye witness against her son for killing his father. Her evidence will alone be sufficient to convict the accused, if she is found to be truthful and truth worthy witness, and nothing is shown that she deposed falsely or in highly exaggerated manner as to the occurrence. Learned counsel Mr. R.L. Yadav has drawn our attention to her cross examination portion and submits that Smt. Rukni, could only see the quarrel between the father, and the son and went out when the quarrel indentified and came back in the morning, therefore she had no occasion to see what actually happened and who cut her husband in that night. His submission is based only on superficial examination of the cross examination portion. In criminal trial, whole of the evidence in chief and cross examination are to be read together for correct appreciation to find out the truth therefrom. Mere reading the cross portion, completely ignoring the chief portion, will be very muc