JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput- eypore in,Sessions Case No. 35 of 1987 (103-87 of S.J.) convicting and sentencing the Respondent to undergo R.I for seven years for the offence u/s 304 (Part I) I.P.C. and to undergo R.I for one year for the offence u/s 324 I.P.C. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent (accused in Court below) had married the daughter of Kadarama Mallanna. Both the Respondent and his father-in-law belonged to the same village Dumaguda under Rayagada P.S. in the district of Koraput. Kadaraka Bhima, the informant and deceased Kadaraka Balaji are brothers of Kadaraka Mallanna. A female child was also born out of the wedlock of Respondent and his wife. The Responden till treated his wife, assaulted her for which she took shelter in the house of her parents. When the accused went to bring her back to his house, his in-laws did not allow the bride to accompany her husband. The day preceding the date of occurrence when the accused/Respondent went to bring his wife from the house of his father-in-law, his wife with her daughter kept herself concealed and in the absence of Kadarama Mallanna, the informant and the deceased did not allow the wife of the Respondent to accompany him (Respondent). On the same Saturday night the Respondent having not seen his wife and daughter, lost his balance of mind, got enraged and moved around the village holding the axe in his hand. 3. On next morning i.e. 5.4.1987, when Kadarka Bhima with deceased Kadaraka Balaji had gone to the river side to take their bath, the Respondent suddenly appeared before them with the axe and dealt a blow on the right side neck of Balaji, who having sustained bleeding injury ran to a little distance, fell down and expired. On the protest made by Kadarama Bhima, the Respondent dealt a blow by means of the said axe on his right side cheek and left side buttock causing bleeding injuries. The informant went to his house and informed this fact to the wife of Balaji, who came and saw her husband lying dead on the river side. 4. On the protest made by Kadarama Bhima, the Respondent dealt a blow by means of the said axe on his right side cheek and left side buttock causing bleeding injuries. The informant went to his house and informed this fact to the wife of Balaji, who came and saw her husband lying dead on the river side. 4. Informant Kadarama Bhima appeared at Rayagada P.S. on the same day at about 11 a.m. and submitted oral report, which was reduced to writing by the Officer-in-charge. The O.I.C. registered P.S. Case No. 95 of 1987 and directed S.I of Police of the said P.S. to take up investigation. After completion of investigation the I.O. submitted the charge sheet. 5. The plea of the defence is one of denial of the occurrence. 6. In all ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case and no witnesses were examined for the defence. The prosecution exhibited several documents and no documents were filed, on behalf of the defence. 7. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has opined on the basis of the evidence recorded that the Respondent-accused had no intention to cause death of Kadaraka Balaji and having dealt with only one blow by means of an axe out of grave provocation, therefore, the offence committed by him came within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but punishable u/s 304 (part-I) I.P.C. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1, who had stated that the accused dealt a blow on his right side neck and another blow on his left side buttock by means of an axe (M.O. I) which is also corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, who were present at the time of occurrence by the river side to take their bath. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that it was a case of u/s 302 I.P.C. and not u/s 304 (part-I) I.P.C. But due to the reason mentioned by the Additional Sessions Judge that the accused-Respondent had no intention to cause death of Kadaraka Balaji, his contention is not sustainable. 10. In view of the discussion made above we find no impropriety or illegality in the impugned judgment and Order dated 30.06.1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in S.C. Case No. 35 of 1987. 10. In view of the discussion made above we find no impropriety or illegality in the impugned judgment and Order dated 30.06.1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in S.C. Case No. 35 of 1987. Accordingly no case for our interference is made out. The Government Appeal is misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. N. Prusty, J. 11. I agree Govt. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed