The court clarified that intent to kill is essential for murder charges, finding that lack of specific intent warranted a conviction under culpable homicide instead.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The sole appellant-Sapana @ Sapneswar Naik has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, Angul in Sessions Trial Case No.5-D of 1997, whereby the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II and Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years in lieu of the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for fifteen days in lieu of the conviction under Section 323 of I.P.C.

2. The present appeal is pending since 13.05.1999. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned counsel submitted that this is an old file being handled by his senior Mr. Brahmananda Panda, who is no more. He also submitted that he does not have the power to appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Panda, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that, on 19.04.1996 while the deceased-Gura Dehury was returning to his village at about 6.00 P.M., after searching for his son in the cashew field, he found Balia Naik (P.W.3) returning to his house ahead of him in the village road. At that time, the appellant suddenly gave a fist blow on the back side neck of P.W.3, for which, the deceased asked the accused as to why he assaulted the old man. It is alleged that the accused-appellant immediately went inside his house and came out with a bow and arrow and shot an arrow, which hit the deceased below his chest. Having sustained an injury, the deceased fell down on the road and he himself extricated that arrow from his body. On the request of the deceased, his eldest son Ranjan Dehury (P.W.1) went to the Gondia P.S. and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.1). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was stood charged for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. On his stance of complete denial and claim of trial, he was put to trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as six witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 are the witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.W.6 was the S.I. of Police, who conducted the investigation.

6. The learned trial Court by heavily relying upon the testimony of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, and 5, which stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, arrived at the following findings:-

“10. Now the next question that falls for adjudication is about the liability of the accused in the aforesaid crime. From the evidence of the eye-witnesses p.ws.3 to 5 with regard to the occurrence, it is clear that it was a sudden affair when the accused suddenly ran to his house and after bringing one bow and arrow shot one arrow which hit the deceased. It is in the evidence of p.w.5 that when 3 to 4 persons, who rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the shout of the p.w.3, at that point of time the accused questioned them as to if they had gone there to assault him and he then rushed to his house and immediately returned with a bow and arrows to that place. It has been elicited during his cross-examination that the