The use of the blunt side of the weapon indicated a lack of intent to kill, categorizing the offense as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, namely, Prasanta Mallik @ Bobby, in the present JCRLA, has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2007 of the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jagatsinghpur, wherein he having found guilty in the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, in short, called “ IPC ”) for commission of murder, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.01.2006, at about 2 p.m., while Dija Mallick, the deceased, was resting at Balaji Matha, the Appellant came holding a spade and assaulted the deceased on his head with the spade. The Informant, who was tying his calf, witnessed the occurrence and shouted. At that moment, Naba Das, Bika Das, Iswar Mallick, and others arrived at the scene and administered water to the deceased, who was unconscious. When the deceased did not regain consciousness, they shifted him to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. It was further alleged in the FIR that about one month prior to the incident, the Appellant had brought cash of Rs. 200/- from his house, and at the request of the Appellant’s father, the deceased took the Rs. 200/- from the Appellant and returned Rs. 100/- to his father. The Appellant demanded the return of the cash from the deceased twice, and taking advantage of the deceased being alone on the day of the incident, he murdered him. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered at Balikuda Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 2/06, and the investigation commenced.

3. In the course of investigation, P.W.14, the I.O., examined the Informant and other witnesses, visited the scene, and seized a spade and a blood-stained shirt in the presence of witnesses. He then prepared the seizure list, which is marked as Ext. 3. On the same day, he also seized blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot and prepared another seizure list, marked as Ext. 4. Additionally, he prepared the spot map, which is marked as Ext. 6. On 11.01.2006, the I.O. conducted inquest on the dead body at UGPHC, Balikuda, arrested the Appellant, and sent him for a medical examination. The report of the medical examination is marked as Ext. 7/2. On 12.01.2006, the I.O. forwarded the Appellant to the Court under custody. On the same day, he seized one black check-shirt, one violet lungi, and one red napkin, following the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The seizure list for these items is marked as Ext. 8. The incriminating materials were sent for chemical examination through SDJM, Jagatsinghpur on 24.01.2006. The chemical examination report is marked as Ext. 10, and the post-mortem report is marked as Ext. 5. Having gathered sufficient evidence against the Appellant, the chargesheet was submitted to face trial.

4. The case of the defence is one of complete denial and false accusations.

5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. The defence has examined none on its behalf.

6. The learned trial Court having believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the Appellant guilty and convicted him awarding sentence as described above.

7. Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, the learned counsel for the Appellant, submits that the evidence on record does not conclusively establish the motive to commit murder. Mr. Mishra contends that firstly, there is no evidence of premeditation or any prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The alleged monet