The court determined that the accused's actions were provoked and should be classified under Section 304 Part-I rather than Section 302, acknowledging the influence of sudden provocation on culpability.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellant questions the correctness of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Ad- hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.77/88 of 2010 whereby, being convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for four months.

2. The prosecution case, sans unnecessary details is as follows:-

One Rupabati Sahoo (informant) lodged F.I.R. before Banharpalli Police Station in the district of Jharsuguda on 10.07.2010 stating therein that on that day in between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. while her husband (deceased) was sitting on the outer courtyard of their house, the accused-appellant uprooted a banyan tree planted earlier by the deceased due to which there was an altercation between them as the deceased rebuked the accused for such act. The accused being enraged went inside his house and came back holding an axe with which he dealt a blow on the neck of the deceased causing him to fall down in a pool of blood. Though the informant and her son-in-law Chagala Sahu tried to restrain the accused in committing the act, they could not. The accused left the spot after abusing the informant.

Thereafter, the informant and her son-in-law called the neighbours who rushed to the spot and also saw the accused standing on the road holding the axe. The deceased was shifted to the hospital but was declared dead by the Doctor.

The above complaint was registered as Banharpalli P.S. Case No.16(3) dated 10.07.2010 under Section 302 of I.P.C. which was followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused also under of I.P.C.

3. The accused took the plea of denial.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses of whom, P.W.1 is the informant and eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the son of the informant and the deceased. P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased who is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.4 is also the daughter-in-law of the deceased and a post occurrence witness. P.W. 5 is a seizure witness. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are witnesses to the recovery of the weapon of offence. P.W.8 is another son of the deceased. P.W.9 is the autopsy surgeon. P.W.10 is another doctor who had examined the biological samples. P.W. 11 is the IO. Besides, prosecution exhibited sixteen documents and proved five materials objects.

5. Be it noted that charge was framed by the trial court under Sections 302 of IPC and 427 of as it was alleged that apart from killing the deceased, the accused had also damaged the plastic chair by axe blows on which the deceased was sitting.

6. Defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court first held that the evidence clearly reveals that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. As regards authorship of the crime, the trial court, after analyzing the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 coupled with the evidence of the official witnesses held that the dominant intention of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased had developed after he was rebuked by the deceased for uprooting the small banyan tree planted by him and therefore, it was held that he had intention the cause death of the deceased. As such, the trial court held the prosecution to have successfully established the case under Section 302 of I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. However, the trial court found no evidence to prove the charge