The court modified the appellants' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the context of a sudden quarrel exacerbated by a land dispute.

Judgment :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellants faced trial for murder in S.T. Case No. 290/1 of 97-2000 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh and were convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Be it noted that another person namely, Bhakta Pradhan, who was a co-accused and father of the present appellants, died before the charge was framed for which, the case abated against him.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:

The occurrence took place on 06.06.1996 in the morning hours at 7 am over a piece of land locally known as ‘Pathuri Kiari’ under ‘Kusumi Chaka, which was the subject matter of dispute between the parties and the accused persons and the deceased were on inimical terms. It is alleged that prior to the occurrence, deceased had requested the accused persons and their father, late Bhakta Pradhan to redeem the land on payment of the mortgage amount, but they did not agree and the dispute continued.

On the date of occurrence, the deceased Fakira Patta along with his wife Paluni Patta and brother-in-law Guru Charan Ati went to the disputed land and started ploughing the same for sowing paddy. At that time, accused persons along with their father, Bhakta Pradhan arrived at the spot. Bhakta Pradhan assaulted Paluni Patta and Guru Charan Ati by means of a lathi as a result of which, he retreated from the spot. Thereafter, accused Dharani Pradhan caught hold of the deceased Fakira Patta by his waist, while his brother Karuna Pradhan dealt a blow with an axe on the left side of his neck below the ear. Due to the assault, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and died at the spot.

Giridhari Gartia, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged an oral report before the O.I.C , Reamal P.S against the accused Karuna Pradhan, which was reduced into writing. Basing on such report, Reamal P.S. Case No. 37 of 1996 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC and charge was also framed against the accused Dharani Pradhan under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. The defence, took the plea of denial, and false implication one to previous enmity.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited ten documents. That apart, prosecution also proved four material objects. Defence, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence.

5. Upon analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The Court found the testimony of the eye-witnesses, P.W.8 and P.W.12 as consistent, reliable and corroborated by medical evidence The trial Court further observed that P.W.3 was not an eye-witness to the actual assault and treated his evidence as post-occurrence in nature, while the testimony of P.W.2 was relied upon only to the extent of corroborating surrounding circumstances. The evidence of P.W.4, having turned hostile, was discarded. Though discrepancies were noticed in the seizure of the weapon and certain lapses in investigation, including non-recording of the disclosure statement and non-examination of seized articles, the trial Court held that such deficiencies did not affect the credibility of the ocular evidence. The plea of false implication due to enmity was rejected, holding that enmity provided a moti