JUDGMENT : 1. Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. Appellant is the accused in S.T. No. 16 of 1998 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh at Phulbani. As per the impugned judgment dated 08.12.1998 Learned Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 3. It is the admitted case of both the parties that Manmati, the deceased and the Appellant are wife and husband respectively and their marriage took place about fifteen years before the date of occurrence, i.e., 20.08.1997. According to the prosecution, in the occurrence night a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased, and out of annoyance accused dealt a blow to the deceased by a half-burnt wood picking it from the fire place. Because of that blow, deceased sustained bleeding injury on her head by the side of right ear and succumbed to that injury. The Father-In-Law of the Appellant together with his co-son-inlaw set the law into motion by informing at Belghar Police Station about the occurrence. A routine investigation was undertaken by the police and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted. In the Court of Sessions accused denied to the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. and claimed for trial. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Amongst them Dr. Chaitanya Meher (P.W. 8) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved Post-mortem Report, Ext.15 and the Opinion Report, Ext. 4/2, to opine that the half-burnt fire-wood (M.O.-I) is the possible weapon of offence. P.W. 3 - Dr. P.K. Das is the other doctor, who examined the accused-Appellant and proved the Injury Report, Ext.3 about presence of burn injury on the right hand finger and palm of the accused. P.W. 1 Lohara Patra is the father-in-law of the accused and P.W. 2 - Gura Patra is the co-son-in-law of the accused. Neither of them are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but on getting information they arrived at the spot soon after the occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased besides the accused being present in the occurrence room and that the accused made extra judicial confession before them admitting the crime on the pretext that the deceased picked up quarrel with him. P.W. 6 - Padma Charan Patra is no other than the minor son of the Appellant. Prosecution examined him as an eye-witness to the occurrence, but the witness did not support the prosecution and accordingly turned hostile. P. Ws.5 and 7 are the two police officials who participated in the investigation. 5. Accused took the defence plea of denial along with a plea that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and in the occurrence night having feats of epilepsy she fell down and dashed against a stone and sustained injury. In support of such defence evidence, accused examined D.W.1 - Uansu Patra. We find from the original judgment of the lower Court that name of the defence witness has not been reflected in the List of Witnesses, That is regarded as an unintentional omission. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that when P.W. 6 has not served the purpose of the prosecution to narrate the incident as an eye-witness to the occurrence and when other inmates of the house were available to speak about the occurrence, prosecution is guilty of suppression of such evidence and therefore Learned Sessions Judge should not have capitalized on the extra judicial confession proved by highly interested witnesses like P. Ws.1 and 2, and at least benefit of doubt should have been granted to the accused. He also argued that the half burnt wood is a hard and rough object as well as a piece of stone, therefore, no much weight should be given to the opinion of P.W. 8 when he ruled out possibility of the injury caused due to fall on a stone. He argues that on either count if the case of the accused is accepted, then the order of conviction is to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand strongly relies on the evidence on record in proof of the last seen theory and also the extra judicial confession and the opinion of the doctor regarding homicidal death and argues that a conjoint reading of the evidence of P. Ws.3 and 8 together with narration of occurrence as stated by P. Ws.1 and 2 are sufficient to record a finding that it is the accused and none else who could have inflicted the fatal blow to cause homicidal death of the deceased. Accordingly he argues to sustain the order of conviction. 7. Accordingly he argues to sustain the order of conviction. 7. It reveals from the evidence of P.W. 8 that the deceased had sustained (i) one lacerated wound, the size of which was 3 1/2'' x l" x l" below the right ear in vertical direction; (ii) one lacerated would, the size of which was 1" x 1/2'' x 1/4" on the upper part of right ear pinna. P.W. 8 described the corresponding internal injury as (i) There is a fracture on the scalp, the size of which was 2" x l" vertical in direction involving the right temporal and occipital bone behind the right ear. (ii) The membranes were congested and lacerated, the size of which was 3" x 2". P.W. 8 made categorical statement that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and could have caused the death in ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the injuries are possible by M.O.-I. In the cross-examination he admits that such injuries could have been possible if deceased would have fallen on a hard and rough stone. Capitalizing on this opinion of the doctor, Appellant wants to utilize the evidence of D.W.1 so also P.W. 6, who have stated in their evidence that there was piece of stone inside the occurrence room. The aforesaid defence plea appears to be after-thought, in as much as there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 5 or P.W. 7 that during the spot visit any such stone was found inside the room where the occurrence took place. Accused also did not take any step to produce that stone in course of the trial. Under such circumstance, Learned Sessions Judge was justified in not only rejecting such defence plea but also not relying on the evidence of P.W. 6 and D.W.1 in the above respect. 8. When the evidence of P.W. 8 proved about the homicidal death, evidence of P.W. 3 indicates that there were three bum injuries on the fingers and palm of the accused. During the cross-examination accused does not dispute about existence of such bum injuries. Thus, that circumstance aids to the chain of circumstances so far as accusation against the accused-Appellant is concerned. 9. Admittedly, P. Ws.1 and 2 are interested for the deceased being the father and brother-in-law of the deceased, when allegation of murder is made against the husband of the deceased. Thus, that circumstance aids to the chain of circumstances so far as accusation against the accused-Appellant is concerned. 9. Admittedly, P. Ws.1 and 2 are interested for the deceased being the father and brother-in-law of the deceased, when allegation of murder is made against the husband of the deceased. Their evidence to the effect of extra-judicial confession, therefore, has to be considered on proper scrutiny of their evidence together with their evidence that they saw the accused in the room where the deceased was lying dead with bleeding injuries. Such evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2 was not at all successfully challenged by the accused though he suggested that he did not kill the deceased. At the same time, for reasons best known to him, accused examined D.W.1, and in his evidence D.W.1 stated that On the night of occurrence both accused and the deceased were sleeping in one room. On the next morning of the occurrence, I saw that there was bleeding from the head of the deceased. Fire was burning inside the house of the accused. Some portions of the hands of the accused were burnt. Such evidence of D.W.1 stands on the way of the criticism of the Appellant to the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2. On the other hand such evidence of D.W.l corroborates to the relevant part of the evidence of the prosecution proved through P. Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the circumstances which emerge in this case are that accused and deceased were sleeping in the same room, the deceased was found lying dead with injuries on the head, there was a fire place inside the occurrence room and M.O.-I is a half-burnt wood collected from that room and that no stone could be seen or recovered from the occurrence room during the spot visit by the Investigating officer and, above all, according to the evidence of P.W. 3 accused had bum injuries on his hand and the deceased had suffered homicidal death because of a possible blow by M.O.-I. To add to that comes the extrajudicial confession made before P. Ws.1 and 2, the fatherin-law and co-brother-in-law. Under such circumstance, the chain of circumstances is complete to prove the guilt of the accused unfailingly. Under such circumstance, the chain of circumstances is complete to prove the guilt of the accused unfailingly. When the evidence stands at that, accused could not be granted any benefit for non-examination of some other witnesses from the same house or for any minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. In other words, we agree with the conclusion of the Trial Court that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to head injury and the accused is the author of that injury. 10. In course of argument, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued alternatively that in case the accused is found to be the author of the injury, then keeping in view the factum of quarrel between the two as the reason for dealing single blow by a half-burnt wood the conviction may be for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, in as much as both accused and the deceased had a peaceful married life for long 15 years and blessed with children. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand does not agree to that submission of the Appellant on the ground that the blow, which caused the death of the deceased, was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to kill the deceased and, therefore, accused had the knowledge that such injury would cause death, and apart from that there is no specific evidence on record about any provocation being given by the deceased. 11. On perusal of the evidence on record we find that the accused stated to P. Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased picked up quarrel and therefore he dealt a blow. Such statement has been accepted to prove the guilt of the accused. That statement cannot be bisected or dissected while considering the question of what offence the accused has committed. Therefore, the plea advanced by the accused about the quarrel should be accepted when it does not appear to be unreasonable or improbable in ordinary human conduct and inter se relationship between the husband and wife. At the same time this Court is to take note of the social background of the accused and the deceased, they being belonging to an undeveloped area in Kandhamal district, their life style, habits and attitudes. At the same time this Court is to take note of the social background of the accused and the deceased, they being belonging to an undeveloped area in Kandhamal district, their life style, habits and attitudes. Though it cannot be generally stated that all people of the tribal belt are short-tempered, but in this case sufficient indications are available from the aforesaid evidence that accused got annoyed in course of the quarrel between him and his wife and, therefore, a single blow was given. It is not known whether it was aimed or accidentally hit the head of the deceased, and when the matter stood at that, the benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. Therefore, we find that the death occurred in this case amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable u/s 304, I.P.C. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order of conviction by setting aside the conviction for murder u/s 302, I.P.C. and convict the accused-Appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly we also sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine years. It is stated at the Bar that accused has already served that period of sentence inside the jail as under-trial prisoner during the trial and during pendency of the appeal. If that be so, then the accused Appellant, who is on bail from 18.09.2006, is directed to appear before the Learned Trial Court within three weeks, where the period of his detention in jail custody be calculated and set off and the bail bond be accordingly discharged. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed