JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The State has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07.05.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge. Kandhamal-Boudh. Phulbani whereby he has acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). 2. The sole Respondent stood charged u/s 302. IPC for committing the murder of his wife Jaiphulla Pradhan on 02.04.1997 at about 4.00 a.m.. The prosecution story, as depicted in course of trial, is as follows: The Respondent was the husband of the deceased Jaiphulla Pradhan and they were living in one room, whereas his son and daughter-in-law were living in the other room of the same house. The Respondent was aged about 65 years at the time of commission of the offence and his wife was 50 years of age. In the night of occurrence i.e., on 01/02.04.1997 the Respondent and his wife slept on one room after closing the door from inside. Similarly P.Ws. 2 and 3, the son and daughter-in-law respectively of the Respondent, slept in the other room. P.W.2 heard the outcry raised by the deceased that she was dying. He went near the room where the Respondent and the deceased were sleeping and knocked at the door, which was closed from inside. P.W.3 also followed her husband. After P.W.2 called the Respondent, the latter opened the door, where after P.Ws. 2 and 3 found with the help the light of a Dibiri' that the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood. She had received stab injury on her abdomen. FIR was lodged at the police-station, whereupon a case was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-Respondent. 3. The plea of the Respondent in his statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure was one of complete denial of the occurrence and his false implication in the case. 4. To prove its case, prosecution had examined eight witnesses. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances: (1) The deceased and the Respondent slept in one room in the fateful night after closing the door from inside. (2) P.W.2 went near the room of his father and noticed that it had been bolted from inside and after he called his father, the latter opened the door. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances: (1) The deceased and the Respondent slept in one room in the fateful night after closing the door from inside. (2) P.W.2 went near the room of his father and noticed that it had been bolted from inside and after he called his father, the latter opened the door. (3) The Respondent was standing with a knife, which P.W.2 could notice with the help of the light of a kerosene lamp. (4) P.W.3, who was sleeping in the other room alongwith P.W.2, has corroborated the statement of her husband (P.W.2). (5) There has been no explanation from the Respondent as to how his wife died inside the room where he was also sleeping alongwith her. (6) The knife, which was held by the Respondent, contained human blood of 'A' origin, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. (7) The Respondent had made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 2 to 4 admitting to have killed the deceased. 5. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and recorded an order of acquittal. On a careful consideration of the judgment passed by the trial Court, we notice that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded an order of acquittal on impertinent and irrelevant grounds putting much importance on minor contradictions in the statement, recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence given in Court. He also observed that there has been no elaborate description in the F.I.R. Regarding the manner in which the Respondent had inflicted the knife blow on the abdomen of the deceased. We do not find any logic in the said reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in as much P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not the eye-witnesses. P.W.2 only found his mother lying injured after the door was opened by the Respondent. The Respondent who is the father of P.W.2. had disclosed to his son that he had killed his wife. P.Ws. 2 and 3 saw the Respondent holding a knife, which was stained with blood. Subsequently, on chemical examination it was found that the knife contained human blood of the blood group of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had no bitterness or enmity towards the Respondent so as to cook up a story implicating him in a case of heinous crime of murder of his own wife. Subsequently, on chemical examination it was found that the knife contained human blood of the blood group of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had no bitterness or enmity towards the Respondent so as to cook up a story implicating him in a case of heinous crime of murder of his own wife. The intention for committing the murder has been disclosed by P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the Respondent was suspecting the character of his wife. Although there might not have been any quarrel at the time of incident, but the Respondent had ail through suspecting the character of his wife and prior to the incident they were quarrelling with each other. P.W.4 has also supported the prosecution story that the Respondent made an extra-judicial confession admitting to have killed his own Wife in the night of occurrence. It is undoubtedly true that there has been so detailed narration of the occurrence in the FIR. Merely because such details had not been described, it cannot be inferred that the Respondent was innocent, when there are abundant evidence implicating him in commission of the murder of his wife. P.W.5 was a witness to seizure: Even though the contents of the seizure list were not read over and explained to him, since the I.O. has proved the seizure of the knife on being produced by P.W.2, it does not raise any doubt regarding the seizure of the knife. 6. It is the settled position of law that the FIR is not encyclopedia so as to contain the fullest description of the prosecution case. In the instant case, it has been stated by P.W.2 that his father, namely, the Respondent, had killed the deceased by causing stab injury on her belly. Such information had set the criminal law into motion, pursuant to which P.Ws. 7 and 8 swung into action and arrested the Respondent for commission of the crime. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has submitted that parties belong to "Kond" community, which is an aboriginal tribe. They have their separate behavioral pattern and perceptive habits, which are uncommon to the other people of the country. The Respondent had suspected the deceased to have extra-marital relationship with Ors. prior to the occurrence, for which there had been frequent quarrel and disturbance of family peace. They have their separate behavioral pattern and perceptive habits, which are uncommon to the other people of the country. The Respondent had suspected the deceased to have extra-marital relationship with Ors. prior to the occurrence, for which there had been frequent quarrel and disturbance of family peace. It is sated by the prosecution that the Respondent had inflicted only one blow, which is evident from the evidence of P.W.1 who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. Since the Respondent was under severe mental strain created by the previous act of the victim, it must have roused the Respondent to inflict the single blow on her abdomen without any intention to cause her death. Therefore, it would be a fit case, in case the Court holds the Respondent guilty, to punish him u/s 304, Part-I, IPC. 8. We find sufficient force in the above submission. Taking into consideration the behavioural pattern of the Respondent, who belongs to an aboriginal tribe, we hold him guilty u/s 304, Part-I, IPC. Since he is quite an old man, whose age was 65 years at the time of commission of offence in 1997 we sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The order of acquittal of the Respondent is set aside. He is convicted u/s 304. Part-I, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. P.K. Misra. J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed