JUDGMENT

Appellant Tuna Prusty and his father Kunja Bihari Prusty faced the trial in S.T. Case No.355(1) of 2000-2001 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh on the allegations that on 25.04.2000 at about 1.00 P.M., they shared the common intention to kill Benudhar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). In course of trial, because of absence of sufficient evidence to connect accused Kunja Bihari Prusty with the crime, learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge. At the same time on assessment of evidence on record, he found that prosecution has proved charge of murder against the accused-appellant Tuna Prusty. Accordingly, he convicted him under Sec¬tion 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. In this appeal, the appellant challenges that order of conviction pronounced by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge on 17.07.2001.

2. Prosecution case is that accused Kunja Bihari Prusty and the deceased are co-brothers-in-law. Accused Tuna Prusty is son of accused Kunja, whereas Moochi Sahu (P.W.6) is the son of the deceased. Tuna and Moochi, the cousins were good friends. On the assumption of the deceased and his wife, Tuna is a spoiled chil