The main legal point established in the judgment is that pre-planned and intentional actions resulting in severe injuries and death constitute murder under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st March, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj in ST Case No.175 of 2005 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his cousin, Basanta Kumar Naik and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three months.

2. At the outset it requires to be noted that pursuant to the order dated 21st April, 2022 of this Court, the IIC, Karanjia Police Station, Mayurbhanj has submitted a report on 5th May, 2022 stating that the Appellant is staying in his house with his wife and his other family members.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23/24th April, 2005 around midnight, the deceased quarreled with his wife, Gouri Naik (P.W.1) and during such quarrel, the accused, who was the cousin of the deceased, came there and challenged the deceased for picking up quarrels with the family members regularly. Due to such challenge, there was a hot exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, the accused returned to his house and returned back with a sword and assaulted the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and died at the spot.

4. A telephonic message was sent to the police. Mr. Somanath Sahu, attached to the Karanjia Police Station (PS) (P.W.10) proceeded to the spot, took down the report of P.W.1, registered it as an FIR and took up the investigation. He then arrested the accused, held an inquest over the dead body, prepared inquest report and sent the body for Post-Mortem (PM). While in custody, the accused offered to produce the sword used to murder the deceased and pursuant thereto, the sword (MO-1) was seized from a straw heap near the house of the deceased. A charge-sheet was filed. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.

5. Ten witnesses were examined for the prosecution, which included the Investigating Officer (IO)-P.W.10. The eye-JCRLA witnesses were P.W.1 (the wife of the deceased), Smt. Gaya Naik (P.W.2), the aunt of the accused and the mother of the deceased and the father of the deceased-Hari Naik (P.W.4).

6. The cross-examination of P.W.1 did not yield anything at all for the defence. She stated that it was a moonlit night on the date of the occurrence. She stated that the deceased had taken liquor and that the parents of the deceased were also present when the accused assaulted her husband with the sword. She denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident the deceased was armed with an axe or that he tried to assault the accused with that axe or in the result of a tussle with the accused, the deceased had sustained injuries.

7. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, she too stood firm in her cross-examination. While she said she was not able to see clearly in the night, she still denied that it was not the accused who had murdered the deceased. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, he too was unable to be shaken in the cross-examination.

8. Faced with the above facts, which clearly point to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, learned counsel for the Appellant sought to build the case of the offence being one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Wazir Chand (1978) 1 SCC 130, Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315, Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217, Pardeshiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 3 SCC 238 and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the decision in Wazir Chand (supra) to make it appear that it was a sudden fight flowing from an earlier incident. As regards the fact situation in Wazir Chand (supra), it is noticed from the said judgment by this Court that there was only one injury in that case, which was opined to be sufficient