JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota and Ladu Pradhan faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 I.P.C in S.C No. 24/96 in the court of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. Similarly Ujala Pradhan and Sima @ Simanchal Pradhan faced trial in S.C No. 31 of 96 for commission of same offences in the same court. There was a common trial of both the cases and by a common judgment the said court convicted Appellant Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota u/s 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for life and acquitted others. The said order of conviction and sentence is assailed in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1999. Similarly the order of acquittal is assailed by the State in Government Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002. As both the appeals involve same facts and points of law and arise out of one incident, the same are heard together with consent of Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The criminal action was set to motion on the basis of an F.I.R lodged by P. Ws.1 and 12 before the Officer-in-Charge, Pattapur Police Station. It was alleged that on 08.10.1995 at about 9.00 P.M, P.W. 1-informant was sitting on the verandah in front of his house. He heard somebody abusing his father on the road. He went near the shop of one Bhalu Sahu to verify and find out the man who was abusing his father. He found that Ujala Pradhan, the elder brother of his father was abusing his father. He protested and went near Ujala Pradhan. Seeing him Ujala Pradhan called for his two sons i.e. accused Sima @ Simanchal Pradhan and Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota. Noticing them and out of fear, the informant returned back to his house. While matter stood thus, his father Saiba Pradhan, hearing the noise went to the spot. Seeing him, accused Ujala Pradhan and Sima @ Simanchal Pradhan caught hold him and Ladu Pradhan instigated others to kill him. Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota on being instigated by Ladu Pradhan dealt a 'Kuradhi' blow aiming at the head of Saiba Pradhan, the father of the informant. After receiving the blow Saiba fell down and died within no time. Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota on being instigated by Ladu Pradhan dealt a 'Kuradhi' blow aiming at the head of Saiba Pradhan, the father of the informant. After receiving the blow Saiba fell down and died within no time. In the F.I.R, it was further averred that as there was rain and storm, the informants could not report the matter to the Police Station on the same night, which is situated at a distance of about 15 KMs., and on the next day i.e. on 09.10.1995, in the early morning, he reported the matter. The Investigating Officer reduced the report into writing and treated the same as an F.I.R. After registering a P.S Case the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, made inquest over the dead body, which had been shifted to verandah of the house of the deceased, sent the dead body for postmortem. Thereafter he prepared the spot map and sent Jhunu Pradhan, the daughter of the deceased for medical examination to Pattapur P.H.C as she had sustained some injuries when she tried to rescue her father from the 'Kuradhi' blow, examined witnesses, arrested the accused persons who made disclosure statement with regard to weapon of offence, seized the weapon of offence in presence of the witnesses, completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R Case No. 244/95. 3. Learned Magistrate after perusal of the police documents on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of offences and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The plea taken by the accused persons was of completely denial. According to them a false case had been foisted out of enmity taking advantage of the death of Saiba caused by some unknown persons. Accused Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota took the plea that he is a polio patient and a lame man and was unable to raise the 'Kuradhi' and has been falsely entangled in the case. 5. In order to establish its case the prosecution got 17 witnesses examined. Accused Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota took the plea that he is a polio patient and a lame man and was unable to raise the 'Kuradhi' and has been falsely entangled in the case. 5. In order to establish its case the prosecution got 17 witnesses examined. Out of whom P. Ws.1 and 11 were the two sons, P. Ws.5 and 6 were two married daughters, P.W. 7 was the widow, P. Ws.9 and 12 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 14 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, P.W. 2 was the doctor who examined Jhunu Pradhan, the eyewitness, P. Ws.4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were the co-villagers and were occurrence witnesses, P. Ws.3, 15 and 16 were official witnesses and P.W. 17 was the Investigating Officer. On behalf of defense no witness was examined. 6. Learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge after vivid discussion of the evidence came to the conclusion that in course of a altercation between accused Ujala Pradhan and Saiba, accused Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota all of a sudden gave a blow by means of 'Kuradhi' on the head of Saiba causing his death and convicted him u/s 302 I.P.C. Learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge further found that no evidence of murder was available against other accused persons and acquitted them. 7. In course of hearing Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal took pains to lead this Court through the entire oral evidence and pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses. After going through the evidence this Court finds that in fact material discrepancies are apparent on the evidence of so-called eyewitnesses except P.W. 5. It further appears that most of the villagers have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 319 observed that judgment of conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement made before the Court by a solitary witness. In the case at hand the medical evidence clearly reveals that the death of Saiba occasioned due to the injuries received by him. The doctor-P.W.14 who conducted the postmortem had observed that the cause of death was the injuries on the skull and brain. In the case at hand the medical evidence clearly reveals that the death of Saiba occasioned due to the injuries received by him. The doctor-P.W.14 who conducted the postmortem had observed that the cause of death was the injuries on the skull and brain. The evidence of P.W. 14 coupled with the postmortem report Ext. 8 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the death of Saiba was homicidal in nature. The only other point, which needs to be determined, is as to who had caused the injuries. 8. Admittedly the parties are related to each other and civil disputes were pending between them. On the night of occurrence which was 'Kumar Purnima', Ujala Pradhan scolded Saiba in filthy language. After hearing such commotion, Saiba came out of the house and approached the accused persons. It appears that Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota gave a blow on his head by means of 'Kuradhi' (M.O.I) which proved to be fatal. This aspect is amply proved by P.W. 5, the daughter of the deceased. From her evidence, it appears that after hearing the commotion when her father Saiba left the house, she accompanied him. According to her, accused Ladu Pradhan, Ujala Pradhan and Sima @ Simanchal Pradhan caught hold of her father and other accused Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota reached at the place of occurrence holding a 'Kuradhi' and raised the same to assault her father. At that juncture, P.W. 5 caught hold of the hand of Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota so as to prevent him from giving the blow. It was alleged that Sama @ Syamasundar bites her left dorsum thereby causing bleeding injuries leaving the teeth mark. He also gave her a push consequently she fell down. Sama @ Syamasundar thereafter dealt a 'Kuradhi' blow on the forehead of Saiba causing bleeding injuries and fracture. Her father fell down then and there on the ground and the accused persons immediately left the place of occurrence taking away the 'Kuradhi' with them. 9. After going through the evidence of P.W. 5 who has been cross-examined at length this Court finds there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. Her evidence is cogent, reliable and do not suffer from any infirmity. 9. After going through the evidence of P.W. 5 who has been cross-examined at length this Court finds there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. Her evidence is cogent, reliable and do not suffer from any infirmity. Added to the evidence of P.W. 5, it appears that as per the confession made by the accused persons while they were in police custody, the 'Kuradhi' was seized from their possession. The said fact also corroborates the statement of P.W. 5. The 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence and discussed the same in extensor. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 5 and other evidence he has arrived at the conclusion that Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota had given the fatal blow with the 'Kuradhi', thereby causing death of Saiba. 10. After scanning through the evidence once again and hearing the arguments of Learned Counsel for the parties this Court finds that learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any error and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. This Court, is therefore not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. As stated earlier, the parties are related to each other and civil disputes were pending. The scenario of facts reveals that the occurrence took place all of a sudden. The accused persons did not have the intention to cause such bodily injury leading to death. In fact only one blow was given by Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan,@ Chhota who is also a physically handicapped person in the heat of passion, which unfortunately became fatal. There was no premeditation and the assault was given all of a sudden in the spur of the moment. Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota is in custody for about eight years. Considering all these facts, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the conviction made u/s 302 of I.P.C needs to be set aside. While doing so this Court convicts Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota u/s 304, Part-II I.P.C and sentences him to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, and imposes a fine of Rs. 3,000 (rupees three thousand only) in default to pay the fine, R.I for a period of one month. With the aforesaid modification the Jail Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1999 is disposed of. 11. 3,000 (rupees three thousand only) in default to pay the fine, R.I for a period of one month. With the aforesaid modification the Jail Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1999 is disposed of. 11. So far as the Government Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002 is concerned this Court finds that apart from P.W. 5 the evidence of all other witnesses is full of contradictions. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence except that of P.W. 5 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against other accused persons except Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota beyond all reasonable doubt. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 5 also reveals that no specific overt acts have been attributed by her to accused persons other than Sama @ Syamasundar Pradhan @ Chhota. The 1st Addl. Sessions Judge has dealt with the evidence elaborately and the conclusions arrived at are just and proper. That apart the incident took place way back in the year 1995. Fourteen years have passed in the meanwhile. After lapse so many years, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal, and dismisses the Government Criminal Appeal. S.C. Parija, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed