The absence of pre-meditation in a murder committed during a sudden provocation can qualify the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing the severity of punishment under relevant provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Appellants, Bhoka Satnami and Lokanath Satnami faced trial in Sessions Case No. 92/39 of 2000 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada for committing the murder of one Jitaram Satnami. Both the appellants being convicted under Section 302/34 IPC were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 28.02.2002 passed by the trial Court. Be it noted that during pendency of this appeal appellant No.1 Bhoka Satnami expired on 01.06.2015. Accordingly, by order dated 24.10.2025 passed earlier in this proceeding the appeal stood abated with regard to the said appellant No.1 Bhoka Satnami.

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

The deceased Jitaram Satnami had invited his father-in-law, Kumal Satnami to his village for the purpose of sowing paddy seeds on his land. Accordingly, on 27.06.2000, Kumal arrived at his son-in-law’s house and stayed for the night. On the next morning, at about 5 a.m., they went to village Pendraban by bus and arrived in the land locally called, Chakridoli at about 7 a.m. At that time, uncle of the deceased namely, Bhoka Satnami and his son Lokanath Satnami (accused persons) were preparing to plough the land. On seeing these two, the accused persons unfastened the yoke from the plough. Then both of them came near the deceased and abused him. Bhoka assaulted the deceased by means of the yoke causing him to fall down. The yoke also broke into two pieces. Loknath picked up one of the broken pieces and assaulted the deceased. Both of them also tried to assault Kumal who ran away to the village. As a result of the assault, the deceased died at the spot. Kumal informed the matter to the Gramarakhi, Nidhiram Sindhu and went with him to Komna police station where he orally reported the incident which was reduced to writing by one Chaitanya Kumbhar.

3. On the basis of the said report, Komna P.S. Case No. 43 of 2000 was registered under Sections 302/34 of IPC and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused persons.

4. The accused persons took the plea of denial.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and proved 24 documents. Besides, prosecution also proved 15 material objects. The defence on other hand, examined only one witness.

6. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record found that there was prior enmity between the deceased and accused persons arising out of a civil dispute relating to the very same land. It was also held that the death of the deceased was caused by the injuries inflicted by means of the yoke. The evidence of the eye witness, P.W.1 as supported by the other witnesses was relied upon to hold both the accused persons guilty of the charge. Accordingly, both were convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

7. Heard Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant, Lokanath Satnami and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned AGA for the State.

8. Mr. Mohapatra assails the impugned judgment by arguing that the FIR is doubtful as the informant admitted that he does not know Odia. There is no evidence that the contents were understood by him. He further submits that though the spot map shows the spot of occurrence lies to the east of village but as per P.W.2 the same is to the west, which creates doubt. There is no evidence of any altercation having taken place at the spot between the deceased and the accused persons. However, P.W.2 stated about the deceased being abused by the accused persons, which is not believable. As per P.W.11, injury No.2 was the cause of death, though P.W.1, who claims to be an eye witness did