JUDGMENT : 1. Heard and the judgment is as follows: Conviction of the Appellant for the offence u/s 302, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No. 128/17 of 1997-98 is under challenge. 2. It reveals from the lower court record that Janaki, the deceased was the wife of the accused by the date of occurrence, i.e. 24.7.1997. According to the procecution, accused and the deceased had separated from the other two brothers p.ws.1 and 2 and mother p.w.4 but were living in the same premises. On 24.7.1997 at about 5 to 5.30 p.m., p.ws.1 and 4 heard cry of the deceased and on reaching the living room of the house of the accused, they found that the accused was assaulting the deceased by a Merha" and he cautioned them (p.ws.1 and 4) not to intervene or else he would assault them p.w.1, the younger brother of the accused finding no other way reported the matter at Lachhipur outpost. The accused remained inside the room with deceased in dead condition and it is by application of threat by police that accused could be brought out of the room and was arrested besides taking routine investigation regarding conducting inquest, seizure of incriminating articles, etc. Besides p.w.1, p.w.4 the mother of the accused was the other eye witness to the occurrence. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and accused faced the trial for the charge u/s 302, IPC. To substantiate he charge, prosecution examined eight witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts.1 to 11 and the merha, the weapon of offence as M.O.I. Accused examined eight witnesses in support of his plea of denial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on assessment of evidence held that the deceased suffered homicidal death and the accused is the author of the injury which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased. In that respect, learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that evidence of p. Ws.1 and 4 has been supported by the accused in course of his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life. 3. In that respect, learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that evidence of p. Ws.1 and 4 has been supported by the accused in course of his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life. 3. After placing the entire judgment and the record, Mr pani, learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in view of the evidence of p.w.4 that there was darkness in the room, evidence of p.ws.1 and 4 should not be believed as eye-witnesses to the assault. Such argument of the Appellant is devoid of merit in as much as the occurrence took place in between Sand 5.30 p.m. and it was in the month of July Even if there was no window in the occurrence room, the ajar door at the pre-sunset time would have been sufficient to enable p.ws and 4 to see the assault. Apart from that, accused in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. has not only admitted that he assaulted the deceased but also the fact that p.ws 1 and 4 saw the occurrence of assault. As noted earlier, for the aforesaid argument of the Appellant bears no merit. 4 learned Counsel for the Appellant had abnormal mind. He also argue that admission of the entire crime in course of examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. also indicates about the abnormality of mind and under such circumstances, for the act committed in such a state of mind the accused should get the benefit of exception as provided in Section 84, IPC. Mr A.K. Mishra, learned Standing counsel replying to that argument submits that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused was of unsoundness of mind and that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act so as to attract the benefit of Section 84, IPC and therefore the Appellant is not entitled to that benefit. 5. Admission of the crime at the stage of recording of statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. by itself cannot give only implication that the accused possesses an abnormal mind. It may also be a case of repentance or frankness or boldness. 5. Admission of the crime at the stage of recording of statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. by itself cannot give only implication that the accused possesses an abnormal mind. It may also be a case of repentance or frankness or boldness. Under such circumstances, in the absences of proof that accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind so as not to be capable of judging good or bad of the act done by him, the benefit of the provision of Section 84, IPC cannot be extended to him 6. Mr Pani alternatively argues that at least the benefit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder be extended to the accused because the assault must have been as a result of sudden quarrel between him and his wife. Such a contention of the Appellant could have been considered, had there been an iota of evidence in that respect or even a suggestion to that effect or an explanation from the accused in course of his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence of availability of any such material, extending the benefit of explanation - 4 provided under 300, IPC is not possible. Therefore, we also reject that argument of the Appellant. 7. No other point is advanced by challenging to the order of conviction. 8. Regard being had to the fact that from the evidence of p.w.6, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, a case of homicidal death is proved because of the injury to the head and fracture of skull bone. The other evidence, as we have discussed, proves the fact that accused is the author of injury. Hence we concur with the finding of the trial court for the conviction of the Appellant u/s 302 IRC. Since the minimum punishment as provided under law has been inflicted, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed