Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC was applied to determine whether the appellants' actions constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada dated 21.12.2001 in S.C. No. 16/5 of 2001 convicting the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.08.2000 at about 11.00 A.M. when the informant-Kamaraj Majhi was grazing the cattle in his own field found that appellant No. 1-Bahadur Majhi and one Dhanraj Majhi quarreled with each other in the field of appellant No. 1 and during such quarrel appellant No. 1 made Dhanraj Majhi lie on the ground, overpowered him by sitting over his chest and called to appellant No. 2-Santarama Majhi to assault him. Appellant No. 2 who was present at nearby place came with an axe in response to call of appellant No. 1 and chopped both the hands and legs of Dhanraj Majhi, as a result of which there was severe bleeding injuries and consequently Dhanraj Majhi succumbed to the injuries. Even though the informant objected to the action of the appellants, the later did not pay any heed, rather they threatened him to face the similar consequences. The informant who is the brother of the deceased lodged a written report in Jonk Police Station on the same day. On the basis of such information Jonk P.S. Case No. 51 of 2000 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C., which was subsequently converted to G.R. Case No. 176 of 2000. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of the said offences against the appellants.

3. In order to prove the charges during trial the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Out of whom P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence who are also brother and wife of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the scriber of the F.I.R. and a witness to the inquest as well as the seizure. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the witnesses to the occurrence but they turned hostile. P.W. 6 is the seizure witness. P.W. 7 is the Revenue Inspector demarcated the disputed land. P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 are the witnesses who turned hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws. 11 and 14 are the Doctors. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the Havaldar and Constable respectively and P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer.

The plea of the defence was complete denial of the prosecution case and accordingly no witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

4. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record, convicted the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

5. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence on record carefully. It appears that the prosecution has basically relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the occurrence, who are P.Ws. 1 and 2 that prior to the date of occurrence there was ill feeling and hostile attitude between appellant No. 1 and the deceased. Appellant No. 2 was staying in the house of appellant No. 1 as the later was issueless. On the date of occurrence a quarrel ensued between appellant No. 1 and the deceased. The prosecution story further goes that while appellant No. 1 overpowered the deceased, appellant No. 2 dealt axe blows and chopped up the four limbs of the deceased. The injuries noted by the Doctor-P.W. 14 in the Postmortem report does not give any doubt that the deceased had received the injuries on the date of occurrence by means of axe and his death was caused due to such injuries. P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are independent witnesses were turned hostile. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the most natural and trustworthy witnesses and there cannot be any reason to disbelieve their testimony. P.W. 15, the Investigating Officer has proved the disclosure statement of appellant No. 2 under Ext. 7/1, which reveals that the weapon of offence was discovered from the place of concealment in consequence to the informatio