R.K. Patra, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-11-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (S&W;), Namchi in Criminal Case No. 3/2001 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC for committing murder by intentionally causing the death of his maternal uncle, Ran Bahadur Rai and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a defaulting clause of sentence.
2. The prosecution story emerging from the FIR and the evidence on record is as follows :
Ran Bahadur Rai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his father Bartaman Rai (PW-10) were staying separately in village Dumi Gaon. Bartaman Rai (PW-10) had partitioned his landed properties amongst his son (deceased) and two daughters, one of them being Dhan Maya Rai, PW-4 (mother of the appellant). PW-10 had kept some land for himself. The deceased was not happy with this family arrangement and had been protesting to his father that he should not have given any share of the family properties to his daughters. This had given rise to frequent misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased. On 7-12-2000 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired about his whereabouts from PW-2 (widow of the deceased). She told him that he had gone to the Church and would be returning home very soon. After a short while the deceased came home and while sitting on his bed, the appellant who was awaiting his arrival suddenly took out a khukri from underneath his jacket and with it inflicted several blows on different parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. PW-1 the Panchayat President ort being informed reported about the incident to the police over telephone. On the basis of the above report the police registered a case at Jorethang P.S. and took up investigation and arrested the appellant and after completing investigation placed him on trial.
3. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of its case. PW-22 (widow of the deceased) and PW-3 (daughter of the deceased) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The appellant had also made extra-judicial confession before his grandfather (PW-10). The learned Sessions Judge relying on the above evidence, held the appellant guilty of the charge.
4. There is no doubt that the deceased had a homicidal death. PW-16, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination detected the following injuries on the body of the deceased :
(i) incised wound of the face running obliquely above both cheeks and chopping the nose across the nasal cartilage 20 cms, long and dividing the tragus of the left ear.
(ii) incised wound of the left temporal region of scalp and left cheek vertically placed 18 cms. long resecting the temporal and facial muscles cutting the scalp and exposing lacerated brain matter.
(iii) incised wound 15 cms. long obliquely placed over the chin cutting the outer table of the mandible.
(iv) multiple incised chopped wounds over the left side and front of neck coalescing and intercepting leading to resection of the muscles of the neck on the left side, resection of the trachea and esophagus, left jagular and carotid vessels and the fourth cervical vertebra partially on the left side producing a gaping wound 30 x 15 cms. with the loss of soft tissues in some areas.
(v) incised wound 10 x 1 x .5 cms. over the forehead.
(vi) multiple incised wound over the dorsum of left hand and base of little finger.
(vii) incised wound 2 x .5 cms. on the left thumb.
According to him, the Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple incised injuries produced by a sharp-edged, heavy cutting weapon. The injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
5. As already indicated, PWs-2 and 3 are ocular witnesses to the incident. PW-2 is the widow of the deceased. She stated in her evidence that the appellant is her nephew. On the date of the incident at about 9.30 p.m. someone knocked at her door and since the deceased had gone to the Church she thought he had returned home. But on opening the door, she found that it was the appellant who was knocking the door. The appellant enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased. She told him that he had gone to the Church and would be coming back very shortly. After a short while, the deceased came home and sat on his bed. The appellant was awaiting his arrival. When he saw the deceased, he took out a khukri from underneath of his jacket and started striking the deceased with the khukri on different parts of the body. She tried to prevent the appellant, from striking further but he pushed her against the wall and as a result she sustained injuries on her left cheek and two of her teeth got shaken up and thereafter she ran away from the spot. At that time she found that the deceased had fallen on the bed. She was cross-examined by the defence but nothing substantial came out to discredit her testimony. The next eye-witness is PW-3, the daughter of the deceased. She was aged about 13 years old. Her evidence is that when she got up after hearing her mother screaming she saw the appellant striking her father with the khukri on his head. Her mother PW-2 tried to separate them but when she failed she came put and shouted for help. PW-3 too came out of the house and went to call their neighbour, Tikaram Kami. This witness PW-3 was also subjected to cross-examination but nothing was brought about to discredit her solemn testimony. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 we arc satisfied that both of them are reliable witnesses. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity.
The next piece of evidence against the appellant is the confession made before the grandfather PW-10. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the appellant has denied to have made any such statement. Though the said extra-judicial confession is retracted, the evidence of PW-10 would go to show that the appellant's confession before him was true and voluntary. PW-10 deposed that at about 9 p.m. (time mentioned by him apparently approximate) of the night of occurrence the appellant came to his house and told him that he had cut the deceased with the khukri. He was holding a khukri in his hand. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that he would falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of the offence.
6. In view of what has been stated above, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on the decea'sed with the khukri resulting in his death.
7. The counsel for the appellant faintly submitted that the appellant had the right of private defence of property. When it was pointed out to him that there is nothing on record to hold that there was apprehension of causing death or serious hurt or any imminent danger to his property, the learned counsel rightly did not further pursue his submission.
8. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
N. Surjamani Singh, J.
9. I agree.