A conviction for murder was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to evidence supporting a sudden quarrel and absence of premeditated intent.

Judgment :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The present appellant and one Kapila Pradhan faced trial in ST Case No.17/07 of 2001 in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh for committing the murder of one Sankar Mukhi. While Kapila Pradhan was acquitted, the present appellant was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

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

On 14.08.2000, in village Karlaga, Manoharpur, under Kundheigola Police Station in the district of Deogarh, one Balaram Behera came and informed the informant, Naveen Mukhi that his father had been killed by the appellant. It so happened that on that day at about 5 pm while the father of the informant, Sankar Mukhi had gone to Manoharpur to the house of the present appellant, he had an altercation with the appellant. As a result, the appellant and his father Kapil Pradhan assaulted the deceased by means of an iron rod and killed him in the muga field of Balaram Behera. Hearing about the incident from Balaram Behera, the informant went to the spot and found his father lying dead. He therefore went to the Khairpali outpost and submitted a written report. The report was entered in the Station Diary and investigation was taken up. On the next day, the report was forwarded to the Kundheigola Police Station, where P.S. Case No.53 dated 15.08.2000 was registered under sections 302/34 IPC and since the ASI of Khairpali outpost had already taken up investigation, the same was endorsed in the FIR. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father under sections 302/34 IPC.

3. The plea of the accused persons was of denial and false implication. The accused persons additionally took the plea that while returning from the liquor den with the deceased, the latter had abused him.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited eight documents. That apart, prosecution proved five material objects. Defence, on the other hand, examined two witnesses.

5. After, analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court was of the view that prosecution had successfully established its case against the present appellant though not against the co-accused, Kapila Pradhan. Basing on the medical evidence as well as the eyewitness account along with so-called admission of the accused, the trial Court arrived at the finding that accused, Lambu Pradhan inflicted the brutal blows on the person of the deceased, Sankar Mukhi with the iron rod, causing his death. Having held so, the trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused Kapila Pradhan, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

6. Heard Sri Ramakanta Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

7. Sri Sarangi assails the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds.

i) The FIR relied upon by the prosecution is entirely doubtful and if the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are read together, it will be easily seen that the FIR was antedated and created only for the case.

ii) The trial Court has ignored the vital aspect that the spot of occurrence is entirely doubtful, particularly in the absence of any spot map being prepared by the investigating officer.

iii) The nearby house owners were not examined at all, who could have independently corroborated the version of the informant and other witnesses.

iv) The trial Court completely ignored the defence evidence without any justified reason, which would have shown the f