house and what was transpired in the house is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. He has to come out with proper explanation for the same. In the absence of any explanation, as to what has transpired inside the house, we are of the view that the contention of the accused that the occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel, cannot be countenanced at all. It is not the case of the accused that provocation was sought by the deceased as a result, he attacked the deceased. In the cross examination of witnesses, he has taken a stand that there was altercation between himself and PW1. When the deceased and PW2 intervened, at that time, they sustained injuries and at the time there was a current failure. The said contention is absolutely found to be false. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 falsify the contention of the accused about the power failure statement. PW4 the owner of the house, has also rushed to the spot immediately and found the dead body in side room and also found PW2 was crying at the relevant time. Therefore, the contention of the accused that there was a sudden quarrel , which resulted in attack on deceased and PW1, cannot be countenanced. In the absence of any circumstances to suggest any provocation on the part of the deceased, the indiscriminate attack on the vital part of the body of the deceased, the only inference can be drawn by this Court is that the accused in fact has the intention to cause the death.
