SANKAR BAG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the murder by intentionally causingthe death of his father in law Pankaj Nag. He has also been convicted under section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for having attempted to commit the murder of his mother in law Urmila and under section 323 I. P. C. for having voluntarily caused hurt to his sister in law Srimati and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; all the sentences are to run concurrently,

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was earning his livelihood by pulling rickshaw and was staying at Panitanki Jhumpudi, Sector 7, Rourkela. His father in law Pankaj Nag (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was staying in the same locality with members of his family. The appellant most of the time was taking liquor and was quarrelling with and ill treating his wife Laxmi (p.w. 12). In the night of 30 5 1992, the appellant returned home in a state of intoxication and started quarrelling with his wife. His mother in law Urmila could not tolerate it and came to the house of the appellant and questioned him. At this the appellant got enraged and challenged his mother in law as to why she was interfering in his domestic affairs. He brought out a long iron rod and with it assaulted on her head causing profuse bleeding injury. Hearing her shout, the deceased and his younger daughter Srimati (p.w. 3) came to the spot. When they came and tried to dissuade the appellant, the latter assaulted Srimati (p. w. 3) and the deceased on his head and other parts of the body with that iron red. Due to such assault, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and fell down. When other people of the Basti came, the appellant threatened them to assault. The deceased was ultimately shifted to the hospital but he could not survive and died.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined fourteen witnesses on its behalf. P. w. 1 Urmila (widow of the deceased), p. w 3 Srimati (daughter of the deceased) and p. w. 12 Laxmi (wife of the appellant) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The deceased had also made dying declaration which was recorded by the Investigating Officer (vide Ext. 1) in the presence of p. ws. 2 and 6. Basing on theirevidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant, as mentioned above.