MAKAR ALIAS HARENDRANATH GIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sole Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 304, Part -II and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'Indian Penal Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on the first count and for a period of four years on the second count. Both the sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. Initially the accused was charged under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code. But the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, acquitted him of the said charge, and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that on 3.4.1993, sister -in -law of the accused was combing the hair of mother of accused. Mother of the accused used to tell him to work for his livelihood. On the date of occurrence upon hearing this from the mother, accused came with a Daula (katari) and cut the hair of the head of his mother out of anger. When his mother and Laxmipriya Giri alias Champamani (P.W. 8) protested, the accused dealt a blow on the neck of his mother causing injuries to her and thereafter she succumbed to the same. The accused is also said to have inflicted injuries on P.W. 8. Upon hearing the alarm raised, some villagers arrived and confined the accused in a room. Father of the accused, who was then absent from home, on getting information from some of the villagers came back and saw his wife lying dead on the ground. Stating aforesaid facts, informant Bidyadhar Giri (P.W. 1) lodged. first information report at the police station on the basis of which a case was registered, police took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet against the accused. Upon filing of the charge -sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the accused to Court of Session to face trial.

(3.) IN support of prosecution case, 19 witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 8 is nobody else than sister -in -law of the. accused and an injured eye -witness. P.W. 1 is the informant himself who claimed to have arrived the place of occurrence upon hearing the hullah, whereas P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 9 also claimed to have arrived there upon hearing the hullah and found mother of the accused lying dead on the ground, and P.W. 8 lying unconscious on the ground. These witnesses stated that they apprehended the accused and bolted him in a room. P.W. 6 is a witness to seizure, P.W. 10 is father of the accused, P. Ws. 14 and 13 are formal witnesses, and P. Ws. 16, 17 and 18 are three Doctors. P.W. 16 is said to have examined the injured. P.W. 18 is Dr. B.N. Mohanty, who. conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P. Ws. 11 and 19 are the investigating officers in the case. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal.