The court established that knowledge, rather than intent, defines culpability under Section 304 Part II in cases of inflicting fatal injuries, particularly involving vulnerable victims.

1. On a quiet day in the year 1995, a household was touched not by joy or laughter, but by an act of cruelty so sudden and senseless that it stilled a life before it had even learned to smile. The victim was an infant, just two months old whose world was no larger than the warmth of her mother’s arms and the simple rhythm of her own breath. In that sanctuary, where every child ought to be safest, the accused-appellant, in the heat of a trifling quarrel, struck the child with a stick and alas, the fragile life slipped away while still cradled in her mother’s embrace. The trial court, years ago, found the accused guilty of this act, yet the shadow of finality has not yet fallen; for this appeal, pending for nearly three decades, stands as a silent testament to the long journey of justice. Time may have blurred the voices of witnesses and dimmed the vividness of memory, but the weight of a young life lost remains unchanged, pressing upon the conscience of this Court as it now turns to decide this appeal.

1.1 The present appeal arises from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No.105 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant No.1 under Sections 304 Part II and 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity), and both the accused-appellants under Section 323 /34 of the Code. Accused-appellant No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Code; and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Section 324 of the Code. Additionally, both the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 323 /34 of the Code. The Court below directed that the sentences awarded to accused-appellant No.1 shall run consecutively.

2. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 Makuru Naik has expired. Therefore, the appeal qua him stood abated. The appeal is now confined to Appellant No.1.

Prosecution Story

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.01.1995 at about 5:00 p.m., the informant, Manaranjan Naik, met accused Sanu Naik and accused Makuru Naik at Khiching market. The informant demanded repayment of Rs. 60/- from accused Makuru, which he had earlier advanced as a loan. Accused Sanu, being a friend of Makuru, replied that the informant was not entitled to the money as he had taken wood from the forest which the accused persons were guarding. The informant denied cutting any wood and pressed his demand, whereupon accused Sanu dealt two fist blows to the informant’s face. At that time, accused Makuru uttered abusive words towards the informant. The informant left the place and ran towards his house.

At about 6:00 p.m. on the same day, accused Sanu came to the informant’s house armed with a stick, accompanied by accused Makuru. Accused Sanu declared his supremacy, abused the family members, and entered the house. He assaulted the informant’s wife, Basanti Naik, with kicks and blows. Hearing the commotion, several villagers, namely Sashi Dei, Baidhar Naik, Srimati Naik, Jema Naik, and Niranjan N