The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and that not amounting to murder hinges on the presence of intention and the nature of the injury inflicted, defined under Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

The sole appellant-Rabinarayan Gochhayat assails his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity) and to undergo imprisonment for life, recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.11/42 of 1997, vide., judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st October, 2000.

Initially, F.I.R. was lodged against eleven persons vide Satyabadi P.S. Case No.95 dated 21.08.1994. However, charge-sheet has been submitted against ten accused persons including the appellant in G.R. Case No.1165 of 1994 for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 148 / 302/ 294/ 336 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. The case was then committed to the court of sessions. In course of trial, the prosecution witnesses named only three accused persons. they are, the present appellant, one Suria alias Suresh Gochhayat and Sathia alias Satha Gochhayat. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri did not find Suria alias Suresh Gochhayat and Sathia alias Satha Gochhayat guilty of the alleged offences in addition to Malati Gochhayat, Kamala Gochhayat and Lalita Gochhayat. But, he proceeded to convict the present appellant only, for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced him as stated above. However, it is seen from the records that charge was framed on 07.05.1998 against the appellant, like that of the other co-accused persons under /149 of the I.P.C. In other words, no separate charge under of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant.

02. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

02.1. In the evening of 21.08.1994 ‘Khudurukuni Puja’ was being observed in village Raichakradharpur (Hata Sahi). During festivities, the daughter of accused Rabinarayan Gochhayat, did not give a seat to Prasanta, son of the informant (P.W.4). Therefore, there was exchange of hot words between the informant and Anu, another daughter of accused Rabinarayan Gochhayat. All left for their respective houses after the Puja was over,. It is the further case of the prosecution that at about 8.30 P.M. accused Rabinarayan Gochhayat holding a big crow-bar, accused Suresh holding a knife and accused Sathia holding a torch light, came to the house of the informant-the wife of the deceased, and abused her and the deceased in filthy language. They pelted brickbats and stones to the house of the informant. When the deceased, Sapana Swain, opened the door and looked outside, accused Suresh Gochhayat forcibly dragged the deceased to the village road from his house and accused persons Sathia and Suresh caught hold of the deceased and assaulted him. At that time, accused Rabinarayan Gochhayat dealt a blow by the crow-bar, he was holding, on the head of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground with profuse bleeding from his head. At that time, the female accused persons and their children pelted brickbats to the house of the informant. The accused persons also assaulted Prasanta, the son of the informant, as a result of which, he sustained injury. It is the further case of the prosecution that prior to the occurrence Kalia Khatei (P.W.2) and Magta Baral (P.W.3) were present in the house of the informant and they were discussing about the quarrel during ‘Khudurikuni Osha’. All the accused persons left the spot after they knew that the deceased died.

02.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the informant apprehending that the accused persons may dispose of the dead b