have also seen that the Appellant gave not just one or two blows but several blows of spade to deceased Sugandhabai. This very act of the Appellant, in our opinion, is sufficient to draw an inference that the attack was intentional as well as something accompanied by the requisite knowledge. If the defence of the Appellant is to be accepted, the Appellant would also have to explain as to why so many blows were dealt to his deceased wife by him. It was the case of the Appellant that he was pouring out his anger over the scooty parked in the courtyard and as his wife came in between, the spade got hit to his wife, the Appellant ought to have explained sustaining of so many injuries by his wife. Apart from that, there is an eye witness, P.W.5 - Anis and there is also a witness, who had seen the Applicant hitting Sugandhabai with spade. P.W.3 – Ravindra, had seen the Appellant standing in the courtyard near the dead body of Sugandhabai with a spade in his hand, stained with blood. There is also evidence in the nature of extra-judicial confession given by the Appellant and we may point out here that the evidence of P.W.5 - Anis on the said extrajudicial confession made by the Appellant has not been controverted in any way by the Appellant. This evidence, in our view, would render the defence of the Appellant as highly improbable and, therefore, we reject the contention that the killing of Sugandhabai by the Appellant was not intentional or with knowledge and therefore, it was only a culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
