When a person is said to have given a single blow on a vital part of the deceased, it has been held in several cases that one can only impute knowledge that such an injury was likely to cause death and the offence would fall under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C.

JUDGEMENT

P. K. Mohanti, J.:- This appeal has been preferred against an order of conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life.

2. The charge against the appellant was that on 6-5-1979 about 8 p.m. he committed the murder of Ramachandra Dhublia of village Anta under Jeypore Police Station in the district of Koraput by dealing a knife blow on his neck. It was alleged that while the deceased was talking to P.W.3 Damuru Naik in the presence of his neighbour P.W.5 the appellant went there and addressed the deceased as "Misa Dhublia" thereby meaning that the deceased was of mixed breed. The deceased took exception to such utterance. There ensued a quarrel between the two in course of which the deceased gave a slap to the appellant. This was followed by a scuffle between the two and the deceased pushed the appellant to some distance. Then the appellant came near the deceased and dealt a blow on his neck with the knife which he was holding and left the place. The knife blow fell on the root of the neck. The deceased fell down and died instantaneously at the spot. This occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. On hearing a hulla, the villagers came to the spot and found the deceased lying dead. They went in search of the appellant and found him concealing his present under an Amari Bush. They brought him to the spot where he confessed to have killed the deceased.

F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at midnight by P.W.8 Dambarudhar Naik, the Ward-Member of the village implicating the appellant as the assailant of the deceased and mentioning about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The Investigating Officer reached the spot at 1.15 a.m. in the night and arrested the appellant. He seized the wearing lungi of the appellant which was stained with blood. While in custody, the appellant gave information leading to discovery of the weapon of offence from an Amari Bush. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Police under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. During his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted to have gone to the house of the deceased in the evening of the date of occurrence. He also admitted that he had called the deceased as "Misa Dhublia". He stated that there was a quarrel in course of which the deceased gave him a fist blow and assaulted him with a split wood. He denied having dealt any knife blow on the neck of the deceased and contended that the deceased had attempted to kill him with the knife.

4. The prosecution relied on (a) the direct evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, (b) the refracted extra-judicial confession of the appellant before P.Ws.7 and 8, (c) the evidence of P.W.6 that immediately after the occurrence he saw the appellant running away from the side of the spot towards the Amari Bush, and (d) the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 10 about discovery of the weapon of offence from the Amari Bush.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, on a careful consideration of the evidence of the above witnesses and the medical evidence, came to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the appellant was responsible for the same. We have had the evidence of these witnesses read to us. On a careful appraisal of the entire evidence on the record, we are satisfied that none else but the appellant was responsible for the injury which resulted in the death of the deceased.

6. No doubt, P.W.4 Lachhmi Dhublia is the widow of the deceased and P.W.3 Damuru Naik is the sister's son of the deceased. But their evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased particularly when their evidence gains corroboration from the other evidence on the record. The occurrence having taken place in the residential house of the deceased, P.W.4 is a natural witness to the occurance. P.W.3 claimed to have been sent for by the deceased for a talk regarding digging of a well. P.W.5 is an adjoining neighbour of the deceased. All these