GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11-9-2003 and order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Midnapur in Sessions Trial no. VII (Feb.) 2002. ( 2 ) GOPAL Porey alias Paria was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally and knowingly causing death of Smt. Leela Chakraborty, wife of Shri shibram Chakraborty on 27th April, 2000. The learned trial Judge by a judgment and order dated 11th September, 2003 held the charge to have duly been proved and convicted the accused. By an order dated 12th september, 2003 the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :-The accused enamoured by the looks of the deceased would frequently visit the house of couple. His visits were resented. On 27th April, 2000 at about 8 A. M. in the morning the accused went to the house of the deceased, when she was alone, with a bhojali in his hand and started striking with the deadly weapon indiscriminately, Which resulted in profuse bleeding and extensive cut injuries. Startled by the alarm raised by the deceased as also her children, who had by that time returned from school, her husband Shibram, the de facto complainant, rushed to the place of occurrence and tried to resist the accused. The accused sought in return to inflict injury on the husband. He somehow escaped. The accused thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence. When the victim was taken to the hospital she died within hours. ( 4 ) THE evidence laid by the prosecution goes to show that the P. W. 3 Sukumar, shibram's sister's son; deposed that he, his mother Kalyani and his maternal grandmother resided in a house which is in the neighbourhood and at a distance of 10/12 cubits fr6m the house of the deceased. The accused, 'according to him, used to frequently visit the house of Shibram and Leela. He had adopted an assumed relationship with the deceased known in the local language as a 'makar Bhai'. He however had an oblique motive in visiting the house of shibram. The accused, 'according to him, used to frequently visit the house of Shibram and Leela. He had adopted an assumed relationship with the deceased known in the local language as a 'makar Bhai'. He however had an oblique motive in visiting the house of shibram. Both Shibram and his wife protested against his visits. When his visits were not liked by the couple and he was asked to desist from visiting their house he did, in fact, stop coming to the house of the couple for sometime. The respite was followed by the incident which happened on 27th April, 2000. Susanta P. W. 10, aged about 13 years, son or may be stepson of the deceased, also deposed that the accused visited their house occasionally and talked to her mother Leela. ( 5 ) ON 27th April, 2000 at about 8 A. M. in the morning when the children had left for the school and the husband of the deceased had gone for work in the neighbourhood the accused entered the house with a bhojali in his hand. While he was engaged in dealing deadly blows with the bhojali upon the deceased, the children the P. W. 6 and the P. W. 10 came back from the school since that was a day scheduled for publication of the results and no classes were to be held. The children feeling hungry had come back home. P. W. 6 on the date of giving evidence before the Court was 14 years old and the P. W. 10 on the date of giving evidence was 13 years old. They naturally were fright6ned to see their mother being assaulted with Bhojali. They joined in the alarm raised by their mother. Hearing the hue and cry Shibram the P. W. 1 and sukumar the P. W. 3 rushed to the spot. Shibram tried to resist. The accused in retaliation was about to strike when Shibram escaped. The assailant thereafter fled away. The local people assembled. The victim was found to have suffered serious cut injuries on the forehand, wrist joint, both the legs, the thighs, the right hand was almost chopped off. ( 6 ) THE deceased was taken to the chandrakona hospital. P. W. 16 Dr. Patra attended her According to his evidence when the patient was admitted she was conscious. The victim was found to have suffered serious cut injuries on the forehand, wrist joint, both the legs, the thighs, the right hand was almost chopped off. ( 6 ) THE deceased was taken to the chandrakona hospital. P. W. 16 Dr. Patra attended her According to his evidence when the patient was admitted she was conscious. She told the doctor that she had been attacked with a bhojali by the accused Gopal porey, a neighbour, in her own house while she was alone. The doctor in his injury report which is exhibit 6' has recorded the following history. "as per complaint of patient/victim she was attacked with bhojali by Gopal Porey (a neighbour) in her own house while she was alone in her house. " ( 7 ) THE doctor further deposed that the patient succumbed to the injuries before he could make any significant arrangement for collection of blood, transfusion etc. According to his evidence the victim died at 10. 25 a. M. in the hospital on the same day. ( 8 ) DR. Piyush Kanti Ghosh conducted the postmortem examination on 28th April. 2000. He found the following injuries on the body of the victim :- "1) Multiple sharp cutting incised wound near total amputation of left leg about 2 above tip of left lateral Maleolus (ankle); 2) Almost near amputation by sharp cutting incised wound on right leg about 2" above right ankle placed of postero medially; 3) Almost near amputation by sharp incised wound at mid thigh right; 4) Almost near total amputation of right forearm about 2" above right wrist, both bones cut sharply; 5) Postero laterally placed sharp cutting wound on right shoulder and upper arm about 6" long circumferential 4" deep x 2" wide upto underline bone (right humorus) which was cut sharply about " deep; 6) Sharp cutting incised wound on back right shoulder on little medial to number (5)wound - " x 1" varying depth of the breexing (bruising) soft tissues of the skin measuring about 4 long x 3" depth x 2" wide at the widest part with exposure of the shoulder cavity right with head of right humerous. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. " ( 9 ) HE opined that the injuries could have been inflicted by a bhojali. P. W. 16 Dr. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. " ( 9 ) HE opined that the injuries could have been inflicted by a bhojali. P. W. 16 Dr. Patra was shown the bhojali which had been recovered by which the injuries were inflicted. He confirmed that the injuries could have been inflicted by the bhojali which was marked material exhibit 'ii'. He further opined that the cumulative effect of the injuries was sufficient to cause death of a person in the usual course of nature. ( 10 ) THE bloodstained and controlled earth were seized from the place of occurrence a seizure list was prepared which has been marked exhibit 9'. The bhojali stained with blood was recovered by the police, on the basis of the statement made by the accused, from the bedroom of the accused. The relevant portions of the statement made by the accused which has been marked exhibit 10' reads as follows : "i am further informing you that I have kept the bhojali concealed in my bed room. I can have the said bhojali recovered if you take me to that place. " ( 11 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid statement of the accused police took the accused and some of the witnesses to the bed room of the accused wherefrom the accused brought out a bloodstained bhojali about 16 inches long including the handle and the blade whereof was about 12 inches long. The bhojali was recovered from beneath the bed in the bed room of the accused in the presence of three witnesses namely S. Chakra-borty the P. W. 1, Ashok Kumar Dhara the p. W. 8 and Ranjit Gayen P. W. 9. Both the witnesses identified their signatures on the seizure list but deposed that their signatures were obtained on a blank piece of paper. They were declared hostile. P. W. 8 in cross-examination deposed that the paper which he signed contained writing mostly in bengali. P. W. 1, it appears, had a defective vision. In answer to a question in the cross-examination he deposed "now I cannot read the contents of the FIR because of my short eyesight". He deposed that he signed the seizure list in a blank paper however he corrected himself by saying that small writings were there in the paper. P. W. 1, it appears, had a defective vision. In answer to a question in the cross-examination he deposed "now I cannot read the contents of the FIR because of my short eyesight". He deposed that he signed the seizure list in a blank paper however he corrected himself by saying that small writings were there in the paper. ( 12 ) THE bloodstained wearing apparels of the victim, bloodstained and controlled earth and the bloodstained bhojali were sent to the forensic laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory by its report da'ted 10th april 2002 has opined that the blade of the bhojali, the earth, sari, blouse and petticoat were stained with human blood. The report of the forensic Science Laboratory has been marked exhibit 11'. ( 13 ) THE accused, it. appears, at about 9/ 9. 30 A. M. , on the date of occurrence, entered into the house of the Anchal Pradhan and bolted himself from within in a room. P. W. 4 Prasanta, son of the Pradhan deposed that in spite of entreaties he did not open the door. When he talked to the accused through the window and asked the reason of his erratic behaviour he disclosed that "he had murdered Leela Chakraborty the wife of P. W. 1 Shibram Chakraborty". According to P. W. 4 the accused was arrested at about 4/4. 30 P. M. from the aforesaid room. P. W. 7 Amit, a neighbour of the P. W. 4 corroborated the statement of P. W. 4. According to him "on repeated request by the P. W. 4 the accused spoke through the window of the room and stated that he committed murder and as such he has taken shelter in that room. The accused stated he killed Leela Chakraborty. " ( 14 ) WE thus have before us a) the evidence of the eye-witnesses namely P. W. 1 Shibram Chakraborty, P. W. 3 Sukumar Chakraborty, P. W. 6 Tanusree chakraborty and P. W. 10 Santanu Chakraborty to establish that the accused dealt deadly blows with the Bhojali upon the person of the deceased; b) extra judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 4 Prasanta Dolui and P. W. 7 Amit Dolui; c) dying declaration of the victim made before Dr. Patra the P. W. 16; d) on the basis of the statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act made by the accused the offending bhojali was recovered establishing the guilty knowledge of the accused. e) the bloodstained earth, the bloodstained wearing apparels of the victim and the bloodstained bhojali. according to exhibit 11' the report of the forensic laboratory, contained human blood; f) according to the evidence of Dr. Piyush kanti Ghosh extensive injuries were found on the body of the victim including almost amputation of right forearm and g) according to the evidence of Dr. Patra p. W. 16 the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the usual course of nature. ( 15 ) MR. J. N. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that no one saw the accused bringing a bhojali to the house of the victim. ( 16 ) THIS submission in our opinion is not of much significance when user of the bhojali for the purpose of inflicting deadly wounds upon the victim was witnessed by the eyewitnesses which we already have discussed. ( 17 ) THE second submission was that there was good relationship between the parties. The accused was forbidden from coming to the house of the victim and that may have enraged the accused and therefore the punishment should have been under Part II of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 18 ) WE are unable to accept this submission. Everyone has a right to privacy and to prohibit invasion thereof by un-welcome persons. If that had enraged the accused, as submitted by the learned Counsel, then his anger is bound to be considered as a motive for the act and is not likely to lessen the degree of his offence. The case does not admit any of the exception engrafted to Section 300 of the I. P. C. ( 19 ) WE, therefore, are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Saha. ( 20 ) WE are, for the reasons aforementioned, of the opinion that the learned trial court having considered the prosecution case from all angles, no case has been made out for our interference therewith. Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 21 ) LET the Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 21 ) LET the Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. ( 22 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, on compliance of all formalities. I agree. Appeal dismissed.