The main legal point established in the judgment is the intentional causing of death by the appellants, as evidenced by their presence at the scene armed with deadly weapons and the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - The appellant herein, had been convicted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and each of them has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life

2. The abridged version of the prosecution story revealed that on 30.05.2000 at about 8.10 p.m. the appellant variously armed with arrived at Satichoura in an auto rickshaw giving threatening call in high pitch with intent to annihilate 'Hadia", the son of the deceased-Haramani. No sooner did the appellants reach near the cowshed, they found deceased-Haramani. Appellant-Santu @ Dillip Jena asked her as to whereabout of Hadia and when the deceased expressed her ignorance as to presence of Hadia in the house, all the appellants in an aggressive and menacing mood threatening to kill her unless whereabout of Hadia was divulged So, uttering, appellant-Santu @ Dillip Jena inflicted repeated blows by means of a sword on the head of the deceased while the appellants-Kanhu Jena and Ghunga @ Babindra Jena also dealt blows by means of swords on different pads of Haramani's body. Co-incidentally, Surendra Behera (P.W.5), the husband's brother of the deceased and Jhunu Behera (P. W.4), the daughter of the deceased, were near the cowshed at that moment. Unarmed P.Ws.4 and 5 finding such murderous assault on the deceased by the aggressive appellants trembled in fear and concealed their presence behind the cowshed from where they could notice the entire occurrence. The moment the deceased dropped down in a pool of blood oozing out from the site of assaults, the appellants left the place together still shouting "MAA KAMA SARIGALA, AAU HADIA 00 GEDU RAHIGALE". The appellants left in the same autorickshaw in which they had arrived in the scene of occurrence. After the appellants left the spot, P.Ws.4 and 5 gathered courage and came out of hiding. They found the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with injuries on her head, face and other parts of the body. Within minutes, some police personnel (P.Ws.1, 2 and 3) and several others from the neighbourhood arrived. Few minutes thereafter, at around 8.20 p.m., the I.I.C., Lalbag Police Station also reached the spot, before whom P.W.5 lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) at 8.24 p.m. The deceased who was in a dying stage, was immediately sent to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where she succumbed to the injuries. The plain paper report (Ext. 1) was treated as F.I.R. under Lalbag P.S. Case No. 122 dated 30.05.2000 and on the direction of the I.I.C., P.W.10, S.I. of Police-Braja Mohan Das took up investigation. Inquest (Ext.6) was done over the dead body of the deceased and under dead body challan (Ext.7) the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination where Dr. S.K. Nayak, Lecture in the Department of F.M.T., S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body as per his report, Ext.3. The doctor opined that all the injuries, external as well as internal, were antemortem in nature and could have been caused by moderately heavy to heavy sharp cutting weapons and further observed that the death was due to shock and haemorrhages as a result of multiple incised wound involving head, face and other parts of body. Incriminating materials including the autorickshaw were seized. Some incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination. On receipt of chemical examination report (Ext. 10), wrapping up investigation. P.W. 10 charge-sheeted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. As usual, the offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions after observing all the formalities whereafter the learned Trial Court framed charge against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since the appellant abjured the charge and pleaded not guilty, trial comme