RADHA KRUSHNA GANTAYAT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has assailed the order of conviction and sentence Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 96 of 1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore, whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION story tersely stated is that on 24.10.1993 at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant was said to have given a heavy blow by means of a wooden handle ('Pahurani') oh the head of his co -villager Chanda Mohankud while the latter was sitting in the village road after taking his dinner in front of the house of his younger brother, Arjuna Mohankud. After receiving the injury. Chanda Mohankud fell down on the ground and immediately thereafter when his condition became bad to worse he was taken to the hospital in a critical state, where he succumbed to the injury on the day following. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased, reported the matter to the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, who came to the hospital and a case was registered Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. Subsequently after closure of investigation charge sheet was placed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge on resume of the evidence' of the prosecution witnesses was. however, inclined to record an order of conviction Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant in the manner already stated.

(3.) IN order to establish the crime against the accused, prosecution had examined eight witnesses of whom P.W.I. Dr. Pravanjan Mohapatra was the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and noticed that all the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. P.W.2, the informant and younger brother of the deceased is post -occurrence witness, who immediately reached the spot after the assault and saw the deceased lying with injury on his head. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to be the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are said to be post -occurrence witnesses. P.W.6 has further proved that the 'Pahurani' was seized from the house of the appellant. P.W.7, the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, Chandrapur Outpost, drew up the F.I.R. P.W.8 was then Officer -in -Charge of Muniguda Police Station.