LAWS(ORI)-2000-1-36

HEMANTA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. JASOBANTA SAHOO AND ANR.

Decided On January 14, 2000
Hemanta Kumar Sahoo Appellant
V/S
Jasobanta Sahoo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 was placed on trial to face charge under Section 302 I.P.C. in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. No. 2 -A of 1989 by judgment dated 24.8.1991 acquitted him of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. but convicted him of the charge under Section 304 Part -I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Petitioner who was the informant has filed this revision challenging the aforesaid order acquitting opposite party No. 1 of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C..

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Brajabnadhu Sahu Bhagaban Sahu and Laxminarayan Sahu (deceased) are three brothers. Opposite party No. 1 is the Son of Brajabandhu. The deceased was working as Headmaster in Kulad N.R. School. There was partition of family properties between the three brothers. Their mother was allotted Ac. 1.80 of land for her maintenance. She was, however, staying unset of the time wither with Bhagaban (F.W. 14) or the deceased Laxminarayan. After her death about four years prier to the date of occurrence, Brajabandhu, father of opposite party No. 1, wanted to divide the landed properties of his mother which was objected to by the other brothers. Dispute thus areas between Brajabandhu and opposite party No. 1 on one side and the other the brothers on the other side. On 9.10.1988, the deceased Laxminarayan want to his land to plough it with his Helis. At about 12.30 p.m. the accused -apposite party No. 1 went there and stabbed him with a knife result, Laxminarayan died instantaneously at the spot. P.W. 4 lodged F.I.R. on he basis of which investigation was taken up and the opposite party No. 1 was placed on trial, as indicated above.

(3.) OUT of the 22 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. W Section 1, 2, 15 and 16 (P. W Section 15 and 16 were declared hostile) were eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5, 19 and 20 were witnesses to the recovery of knife (M.O.I.) under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W. 13 was the doctor who conducted autopay on the dead -body.