The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the accused's guilty intention to commit murder based on the credible testimony of eyewitnesses, the nature of injuries, and the accused's subsequent conduct.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mishra, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant from prison U/s.383 Cr.P.C. assailing his conviction U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of one year passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Nayagarh in his judgment dtd.06.10.2004 in S.T. Case No.13/15 of 2004-01.

2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is that deceased Mahadev Behera had three sons. Accused is the eldest son. Deceased Sarat Behera is the youngest one while informant is the second son. Mahadev was working as a drozer driver in the Irrigation Department. Deceased Sarat had a shop in the outskirt of village Dhabalei. All the three sons were separate and were living in different houses. Accused was an addict of intoxicant. He was demanding money in regular intervals from father and brothers. He was picking up quarrel when money was not paid. Prior to the incident he had threatened and went away to live in his father-in-law's house.

On 07.03.2000 he returned and threatened to kill his father and younger brother but his mother (P.W.8) could able to snatch away the 'Farsa' and persuaded him to go back.

On 09.03.2000 at about 8 P.M. accused, holding a piece of wood, commonly known as 'Dhada' or 'ballah', searched his father and brother Sarat in the house to kill them. When he did not find them, he ran towards the shop of his younger brother shouting to kill them. On the way he found deceased Sarat coming on a bicycle. He dealt a blow by means of that wooden 'dhada'. Sarata sustained injuries, fell down and died. His father Mahadev was standing near their shop at a distance of about 20 cubits. Accused ran there and dealt a blow to his head. He also fell down and died. Then the accused fled away.

While accused was proceeding with the wooden piece to kill his father and brother, his wife and mother, P.W.8 and 7 respectively, were following him and had seen the incident. The villagers gathered after the incident. The second son Sudarsan lodged F.I.R. on that night which was registered as Odagaon P.S. Case No.17 dtd.10.03.2000.

In course of investigation inquest was made, so also post mortem was conducted by P.W.11 doctor. The I.O. seized the wooden 'dhada' as weapon of offence from the spot, stained with human blood (M.O.VIII). After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted.

The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Accused was put to trial for offence U/s.302 I.P.C.

3. The accused abjured his guilty in defence.

4. In order to bring home charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Defence examined none. The seized wooden 'dhada' is made M.O.VIII. Out of prosecution witnesses P.W.5 and 6 are post occurrence witnesses. P.W.9 is the wife of the accused who denied to have any knowledge about the actual incident but admitted that she with accused were staying in the house of her father prior to the incident. P.W.10, sister's son of the accused denied to have any knowledge about the incident. P.W.1 is the informant. He stated that his mother and brother's wife stated that accused had killed his brother and father for which he lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.1). P.W.2, 3 and 4 are post occurrence witnesses. They have seen the inquest over the dead bodies. P.W.3 is a witness to seizure to the weapon of offence, piece of wood.

5. Learned trial court believed the evidence of P.W.7 and 8 as trustworthy and reliable eye witnesses. He accepted the evidence of doctor and found that the death of deceased Mahadev and Sarat were homicidal in nature. He inferred intention of the accused from the fact that the accused had left the house and was staying in his father-in-law's house prior to the incident when he was not given money and had also threatened to kill both the deceased. Accordingly he convicted the accused U/s.302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant convict sub