The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in causing the death.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J

1. Instant Appeal is filed by the Appellant questioning the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment dated 6th July, 2012 promulgated in C.T. No.87 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur for having been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

2. An F.I.R. was lodged on 10th May, 2010 by the Informant alleging that the Appellant father assaulted the victim (mother) by means of an axe, as a result of which, she died on the spot, consequent upon which, G.R. Case No.242 of 2010 was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. and on completion of investigation, he was chargesheeted for having caused murder of his wife. Then, the Appellant was committed to the learned court below for trial. The prosecution led evidence during the trial. The Appellant did not lead any evidence in support of his defence, rather, pleaded innocence and false implication. The learned court below finally held the Appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced and convicted him thereunder followed by a sentence of life imprisonment and fine.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the court below relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 despite the fact that both of them could not have witnessed the alleged incident. It is further contended that as per the testimony of P.W.7, the Appellant had no previous quarrel with the deceased but appeared to have committed the alleged overt act under a sudden provocation without any intention to commit murder of the deceased and therefore, it would be a case falling under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. While contending so, the learned defence counsel cited a decision of this Court in the case of Narsingha Bisoi v. State 1986(II) OLR 313. It is submitted that since the Appellant did not have any issue with the deceased wife and without any premeditation rather in a fit of anger caused the assault, the learned court below ought to have convicted him under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. as in a similar case, this Court did take such a view in the decision (supra).

4. On the contrary, the learned AGA submitted that it is a clear case of murder with the requisite intention on the part of the Appellant or at least having the knowledge that such an assault would certainly cause death of the deceased wife. In this regard, learned AGA referred to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7, who are the sons of the Appellant and said to have witnessed the incident during which the deceased was assaulted with successive blows by means of an axe. It is further submitted that an offence under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. is not made out vis-à-vis the Appellant considering the fact that successive blows have been given with the weapon of offence clearly suggesting that it was with the intention or knowledge to cause murder of the deceased. A decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC 91 is cited to contend that appreciating the evidence in its entirety, a clear case of murder is proved and established against the Appellant and therefore, the decision of the learned court below should not be interferred with. The learned AGA contended that the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 7 are sufficient to prove the incident since they were present at the spot which also stands corroborated by medical evidence. Thus, the contention of the State is that the Appellant is the perpetrator of the crime and responsible for the alleged murder of the deceased and hence, the order of conviction is absolutely justified.

5. As earlier mentioned, the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he has been falsely framed for the murder of his wife.

6. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, exhibited number of documents besides the F.I.R. and also the material objects including the weapon of offen