In cases involving a single fatal blow, the determination of whether the offense constitutes murder or culpable homicide depends on factors such as the nature of the injury, the part of the body targeted, the presence of premeditation, and the existence of a motive.

PATHAK,J.

( 1 ) BY this appeal from jail the appellant has challenged the order of conviction u/s. 302, I. P. C. and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1980.

( 2 ) A brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal is that on 7-6-1979, P. W. 7, the younger brother of the appellant, requested the appellant to hand over the amount of Rs. 200/- which was kept in deposit with him for the purpose of the marriage of their sister Janaki. The appellant told P. W. 7 that al that moment he did not have the money and that he would give the money in the month of Ashadh next. When this matter was reported to the deceased, the middle brother the deceased requested the appellant to give the money. The appellant gave him the same reply as was given to P. W. 7. Then the deceased told the appellant that money should be raised even by pledging the rickshaw which was purchased with the joint family fund for purchasing a bicycle to be given as dowry to Janaki. The appellant objected to this suggestion, but the deceased being insistent tried to take away the rickshaw for pledging the same, and, as a matter of fact, he removed the rickshaw for a short distance when the appellant came with a dagger and inflicted a blow with the same on the deceased's chest. As a result of the blow, the deceased fell down. He was immediately removed to the Indupur Primary Health Centre where Dr. Nilambar Rath, P. W. 9, found him to be dead.

( 3 ) P. W. 7 lodged the First Information report at the police station. On receipt of the report, the police swung into action, came to the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead body and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The appellant was arrested on 10-6-1979. During the course of investigation, certain material objects were seized and they were sent for chemical examination which in turn were sent to the Serologist for opinion.

( 4 ) AFTER conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted u/s. 302, I. P. C. and put on trial.

( 5 ) THE appellant took a plea of complete denial. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated with a view to deprive him of his property.

( 6 ) DURING trial, ten witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10), Dr. Nilambar Rath (P. W. 9), Medical Officer, Indupur Primary Health Centre, and Dr. Padma Charan Rath (P. W. 6), Assistant Surgeon, Kendra para Sub-divisional Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, were examined. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial court recorded a finding of guilty and convicted the appellant u/s. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

( 7 ) MR. Arun Kumar Misra, the learned counsel who has been engaged by the Orissa High Court Legal Aid and Advice Committee to defend the appellant, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from a serious infirmity because the learned trial court did not take into account the fact whether the injury on the deceased was caused by the appellant with malice, prepense or premeditation. The learned counsel further submits thai the trial court did not at all examine the aspect as to whether the appellant caused the injury with the intention that in the ordinary course of nature it would result in the death of the deceased.

( 8 ) SO far as the evidence of the eye witnesses is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant does not have any criticism to make, because the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as to the factum of infliction of the injury is of such clinching nature that no exception can be taken.

( 9 ) P. W. 4, the husband of P. W. 2, came to the spot immediately after the occurrence. P. W. 1 is the widow of the deceased. She has stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence at 8 P. M. , P. W. 7 demanded Rs. 200/- from the appellant which was kept with him for the purpose of the marriage of their