LAKSHMI KIRSANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 19-8-1993 passed by Smt. M. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in Sessions Case No. 205 of 1992 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Prosecution case briefly stated runs as follows :Appellant Lakshmi Kirsani and deceased Mangala Kirsani were two brothers and were residents of village Tulagurang under Mudulipara Police Station in the district of Koraput. They had two other brothers also. Their father Guru Kirsani was the owner of a piece of land locally known as "Handrim Beda". The four brothers had been cultivating the said land in turn for a period of one year each. The appellant being the eldest brother deviated from that and cultivated the land for two years consecutively. Therefore while his turn came, the deceased who was the second son of his father also cultivated the said land consecutively for two years, for which the appellant was quarrelling with the deceased off and on. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21-4-1992 at 6 p.m. while the deceased was inviting the villagers to attend a function arranged by him and was near the village school, the appellant suddenly came out of the school and challenged the deceased as to why he cultivated the land in question for two years consecutively and before getting any answer the appellant shot an arrow at the neck of the deceased. The deceased in his turn dealt a blow by means of an axe on the appellant and scaled over the fence of the school and ran on village lane, but fell down and succumbed to the injury. Getting information about the occurrence, P.W. 1 (wife of the deceased) rushed to the spot and found an arrow having pierced the neck of the deceased. P.W. 2, the Ward Member of the village, pulled out the arrow from the neck of the deceased. The informant (P.W. 1), accompanied by P.W. 2 and others went to Mudulipara Police Station at 1 a.m. on 22-4-1992 and orally reported the occurrence to the A.S.I. of that police station (P.W. 6) who was in charge of the C.I.C. of that police station and that was reduced to writing by P.W. 6, who treated the same as FIR (Ext. 6), registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation P.W. 6 visited the spot, examined witnesses, seized the arrow (M.O. II) on production by P.W. 2 under the seizure-list Ext. 7, seized blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot under the seizure-list Ext. 8, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report- Ext. 10, sent the dead body for postmortem examination with dead body challan(Ext. 11). He also seized a bow (M.O. I) produced by P.W. 2 under the seizure-list Ext. 13. P.W. 6 received information that the appellant and his daughter had been to the P.H.C., Khoirput for their treatment and hence he proceeded to Khoirput P.H.C. and found the appellant and his daughter there and issued requisitions for their medical examination (Exts. 3/2 and 4/2). He deputed one Constable to guard the appellant at the P.H.C. On 24-4-1992 he seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on production by the Constable after the post-mortem examination and prepared the seizure-list Ext. 14. On 25-4-1992 he issued requisition to the medical officer, Khoirput P.H.C. for collecting nail-clippings of the appellant and on the same day he seized the nail-clippings of the appellant under the seizure-list Ext. 15 on production by the medical officer. On 27-4-1992 when the appellant recovered from his injury, he was arrested at 6 p.m. and his wearing apparels were seized under the seizure-list Ext. 16 and on the next day the appellant was forwarded to Court in custody. On 24-5-1992 P.W. 6 received the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1) from the medical officer and made query from the medical officer as per Ext. 2 after producing the arrow (M.O. II) before him and the medical officer answered the query as per Ext. 2/1 that the arrow appeared to have been stained with blood and was sufficient to cause death of a person. P.W. 8 further seized an axe under the seizure-list Ext. 17 on production by the informant and sent the same to the medical officer for his examination and opinion as per his requisition Ext. 5/2 and the medical officer opined as per Ext. 5 that the injury on the head of the accused might be possible by the said weapon. On 2-7-1992 the officer-in-charge of the Police Station took over charge of investigation from P.W. 6 and on 8-7-1992 he sent the seized blood-stained arrow, blood-stained earth and sample earth, a loin-cloth (Lenguti), blood-stained waist thread of the deceased and nail-clippings and blood-stained Lungi of the appellant for chemical examination. After receipt of the chemical examiner's report (Ext. 18), the O.I.C. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant who stood his trial.

(3.) The plea of defence is one of denial and false implication.