The judgment establishes the importance of proving the accused's intention to cause death or inflict bodily injury likely to cause death in determining whether an offense constitutes culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Mishra, J. - The sole appellant-Arjuna Sabar assails his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "Penal Code," for brevity) and to undergo imprisonment for life, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.84 of 2008, vide, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th March, 2009.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 10.03.2008, at about 12.30 P.M., the deceased was present in his house. The appellant came with a stick and beat him to death. Brother of the deceased, the informant in this case, submitted a report before the I.I.C., Charmal Police Station. On the basis of the said report, the Investigating Officer, P.W.6, Rabindra Ku. Mallick took up investigation of the case, examined the informant and other witnesses, recorded their statements, despatched the dead body for postmortem examination after holding inquest over the dead body, seized the material objects and arrested the accused. On the basis discovery statement of the accused, he recovered the weapon of offence i.e. wooden batten (M.O.-I). He obtained the opinion of the doctor, who has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased regarding the weapon of offence and the injuries found on the deceased. Material objects were sent through the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for chemical examination to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur. After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

3. The appellant took the plea of simple denial and pleaded his innocence.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses altogether. P.W.1, brother of the deceased Ghau Sabar is the informant in this case. But, he is not an eye witness, as he was informed about the incident. P.W.2, Laxmana Sabara, P.W.3, Sambhu Sabar and P.W.4, Bira Sabara are the three eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5, Dr. Shravan Agrawal has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He has also rendered opinion on examination of the weapon of offence i.e. wooden batten (M.O.-I). Ext.-6 is the postmortem examination report and Ext.-7 is his opinion on the examination of the weapon of offence. P.W.6, Rabindra Ku. Mallick, the I.I.C., of Charmal Police Station is the Investigating Officer in this case. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Defence. The prosecution has also lead into evidence 12 exhibits and 1 material object.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, the eye witnesses, whose testimonies are supported by the evidence of P.W.5, the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and also examined the wooden batten, together with the recovery of the wooden batten, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He proceeded to convict the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

6. Without assailing the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur regarding homicidal nature of death of the deceased and proof of implication of the appellant in commission of the offence, Ms. C. Kasturi, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that it is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. She further submits that this a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

7. Mr. J. Katkia, learned Additional Government Advocate, however, submits that as successive blows by means of a 'batten' have b