JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.7.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 73 of 1995 convicting the accused-Appellant u/s 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and his wife were living in village Gundurijoda. They had three children. The eldest one was staying in a residential Ashram School whereas the two others were residing with the accused. The accused and his wife were picking up quarrels on several occasions. On 16.5.1995 evening, the accused after returning from his work demanded food, which was turned down by his wife. There was altercation between them, in course of which the accused got enraged and gave a knife blow to the chest of his wife. As a result, she died instantaneously. On the following morning, the accused reported the said fact to the villagers like P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. So, P.W.1 proceeded to Telkoi P.S. alongwith P.W.2 and informed the incident which was reduced to writing by the O.I.C. On receipt of such information, investigation was taken up and ultimately charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 302, IPC. 3. The plea of the Appellant is complete denial of the allegation. His specific plea is that on return from his day's work to his house he found his wife lying dead. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and exhibited 14 documents. The defence examined none. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment dated 19.7.1999 convicted the Appellant u/s 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of extra-judicial confession and leading to discovery. 6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant, assails the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (i) There is absolutely no material against the present Appellant to convict him u/s 302, IPC and there are major contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 with regard to extra-judicial confession. 6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant, assails the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (i) There is absolutely no material against the present Appellant to convict him u/s 302, IPC and there are major contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 with regard to extra-judicial confession. (ii) Recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused is based on the lone evidence of the I.O. and Ext.11, i.e. the statement of the accused recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure to which there is no independent corroboration. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the State, vehemently contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is clear and cogent with regard to extra-judicial confession and the evidence of the I.O. is very cogent with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused. The accused led the I.O. and other witnesses to the spot and gave recovery of the knife whereafter the weapon of offence was seized under Ext.6. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant u/s 302, IPC. 8. Perused the L.C.R. P.W.1 is the Appellant's co-villager and informant in this case. He stated in his evidence that the Appellant personally appeared at his house and reported that he had committed murder of his wife, as she could not provide him with "Peja" (boiled rice water) for his fooding and that at the time of incident there was none in his house except his wife. He along with Chaitu Dehury and Kudumi Dehury immediately rushed to the house of the Appellant and found the wife of the Appellant lying dead on a mat made of date palm having stab wound on her chest. Thereafter, P.W.1 alongwith Chaitu Dehury, Kudumi Dehury and Pathani Naik proceeded to Telkoi P.S. and lodged oral report. P.W.2 is another co-villager of the Appellant. He is a witness to the inquest and seizure. He has corroborated the statement of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the agnatic uncle of the Appellant. He in his evidence has. stated that while he was going on the village road, the Appellant came and reported that on the previous night he had committed murder of his wife by stabbing as she refused to supply him "Peja" (boiled rice water). He has corroborated the statement of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the agnatic uncle of the Appellant. He in his evidence has. stated that while he was going on the village road, the Appellant came and reported that on the previous night he had committed murder of his wife by stabbing as she refused to supply him "Peja" (boiled rice water). In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has admitted that he took the Appellant to the house of the Ward Member (P.W.1) and leaving him there he went away. P.W.4 is another co-villager of the Appellant. He corroborated the statement of P.W.1 with regard to extra-judicial confession. P.W.5 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was due to stabbing on the vital organ like heart. He specifically opined that the injuries to the heart were sufficient to cause instant death in ordinary course. He also examined the Appellant on that date and found one burn injury with swelling reddish exudatiu with tenderness 2 cm x 0.2 cm superficial over front side of the right forearm 5 cm above the wrist joint and two small abrasions 3 cm apart 2 mm x 2 mm superficial over left shoulder. He also stated in his cross-examination that there was no possibility of survival of the deceased, even if properly treated, because of the puncture of the heart. P.W.6 is the Scientific Officer, P.W.7 is the constable, P.W.8 is the C.I. who re-examined the complainant and some other witnesses and P.W.9 is the OIC of Telkoi P.S. who registered the case, investigated into the matter and seized the knife. 9. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is very clear and cogent with regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before them. They have categorically stated that the Appellant confessed before them that when he demanded "Peja" (boiled rice water) for his fooding, there was altercation between him and his wife and out of anger he gave a stab blow with the knife. Apart from the extra-judicial confession, prosecution relies upon recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. But, such recovery has not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch as though the I.O. has stated about recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused and proved Ext.11, there is no independent corroboration to the same. Apart from the extra-judicial confession, prosecution relies upon recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. But, such recovery has not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch as though the I.O. has stated about recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused and proved Ext.11, there is no independent corroboration to the same. But then no satisfactory explanation has been given by the accused with regard to the bloodstain found in the knife. On the face of the above evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that out of anger the Appellant gave a blow to the chest of the deceased, which led to injury No. 1, and the stabbing by knife made by the heart punctured, which was the cause of death the deceased. Such act of the Appellant comes under the purview of Section 304, Part-I, IPC. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant u/s 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside and the Appellant is convicted for commission of offence u/s 304 Part-I, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. It is stated at the Bar that the Appellant has remained in custody for more than 14 years by now. If that is so, the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. L. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed