A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Basanta Kumar Bank (hereinafter referred to as the accusedt) has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, I. P. C. T) for allegedly having committed homicidal death of Fakir Charan Bank (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts as presented by the prosecution essentially are as follows: Deceased was the nephew of the accused. Houses of the accused and deceased were adjacent each other and they were living separately in mess and properly at Badadanda Sahi, Old Town, Keonjhar. Relationship between the accused and family members of the deceased was strained and on the date of occurrence, i. e. , 4-5-199 1 the accused abused the father of the deceased and other members of his family in most obscene words and the deceased objected to such obnoxious conduct. During the course of quarrel the accused picked up a Gupti (M. OJ) and gave a piercing blow on the right side abdomen of the deceased, while he was standing in front of his house. On account of the stroke dealt by the accused, the deceased sustained profuse bleeding from his abdomen and raised a cry that the accused had assaulted him. Younger brother of the deceased, Pradeep Kumar Bank (P. W. 1) came to the spot on hearing the cry. Accused was standing at the spot with the Gupti. Apprehending that the accused may give further blows, P. W. 1 snatched away the Gupti from the accused. Same was subsequently produced before the Investigating Officer during investigation. Informant (P. W. 1) carried the deceased in a car to the District Headquarters Hospital, Keonjhar where he was treated. But he succumbed to the injuries on the following morning. Information was lodged at the Town Police Station Keonjhar in the early morning of the next day, i. e. 5-5-199 1. Investigation was undertaken, and charge-sheet was placed.

( 3 ) EIGHT witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case, P. Ws. 1 and 2, i. e. , the younger brother and mother of the deceased claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. Accused pleaded innocence. He took the stand that there was dispute between the accused and family of the deceased and therefore, a false case has been foisted. In order to prove his innocence accused examined one witness, i. e. , driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was carried to the hospital. It was told stand that the deceased had sustained injuries by falling on the ground under the influence of liquor.

( 4 ) DURING trial stand of the accused was that it is in the evidence of P. W. 3, the doctor that when the deceased was taken to the hospital he was given first aid treatment and after the treatment was rendered, he was taken to his home. It is revealed from the evidence of P. W. 3 during cross- examination that a group of persons, who carried the deceased to the hospital disclosed before him that the injuries sustained by the deceased were due to fall over a heap of chips and when the deceased was brought before him for treatment he was found to be in a drunken state. Later on they told him that the person who was brought for treatment had died and that is why the report was lodged with police vide Ext. 2. Learned Sessions Judge on assessment of evidence came to hold that the accused was guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

( 5 ) MAIN plank of argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the oral testimony and therefore, the prosecution version is untrustworthy. It is stated that the medical evidence is to the effect that three injuries were noticed, while the ocular testimony is to the effect that only one blow was given. Additionally it is submitted that the doctor who examined the deceased in an injured stage stated that no information was given by him to the police officials, as the persons acc