Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court confirmed conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'I.P.C.') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

On 21.8.1988. Umakanta (brother of the appellant) teased Jayanti, the niece of Chintamani Rout (PW-1), father of the Pratap (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). On 22.8.1988 Pratap complained about the previous incident to his father (PW-1) who asked him to wait till the arrival of Jayanti's father who was away from the village. In the evening when Jayanti's father returned home, the deceased along with Jayanti's father and Benudhar Rout (PW-5) went to the house of the appellant to ascertain the reason for his having teased Jayanti. As Umakanta was absent nothing could be decided. On the succeeding day i.e. 23.8.1988 morning, the deceased went to the house of the appellant to ascertain whether his brother Umakanta had returned home. He also insisted that the appellant and his brother Umakanta should come for a settlement of the incident regarding teasing of Jayanti. As they refused, quarrel ensued there. At this moment, the appellant went inside his house and came out with a knife and dealt blows with it on the back of the deceased. When the deceased turned his face, the appellant caught hold of his neck and pierced the knife into his chest. PWs 4 and 7 who were present at the spot tried to save the deceased from the appellant but could not succeed. The deceased who had fallen down near the fence of Chakradhar Bhuyan was, however, taken to the village library where he succumbed to his injuries.

4. In order to establish accusations, 8 witnesses were examined including PWs. 1, 4 and 7 who were claimed to be eye-witnesses. PWs. 5 and 6 deposed about the alleged confession made by the appellant before them of having committed the crime. Placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses, learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforenoted. High Court did not find any infirmity in the conclusion by the Trial Court to warrant interference. A plea was taken before the High Court that offence is not covered by Section 302 IPC in view of the fact that the assaults were made during a sudden quarrel. Though the High Court accepted that there was a quarrel, it came to hold that Section 302 IPC has been rightly applied.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the accusations of the prosecution are accepted in toto a case under Section 302 IPC is not made out, in view of the categorical findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court that the assaults were made in course of a quarrel and conviction should not have been done in terms of Section