NABIN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the judgment andorder passed by the 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, inSessions Case No. 15/93 (S. C. 55/93 G. D. C.) whereby theappellant was convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and under section 323,I. P. C further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fortwo months.

(2.) THE scenario of the prosecution story depicted in course of trial is as follows : The appellant Nabin Pradhan is the eldest son of deceased Chhaila Pradhan. They were living in separate mess, but in the same house on the date of occurrence. The appellant waspersistently demanding a share from the house, but the deceased could not part with a portion as the residential house was inadequate for partition. Therefore, the deceased suggested the appellant to take another house site adjoining to their residential house. Therefore, there was misunderstanding and bickering which turned out to the unfortunate incident. On 2 5 1991 at about 2.30 p. m. while Chhaila Pradhan (deceased) was taking rest in the outer room of his house on the floor and his wife Hema Pradhan (p. w. 1) sleeping near his feet, the appellant went into the house and gave a murderous blow on the head of the deceased by a rectangular wooden bar (ADAGEDA) used for locking the door, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and instantaneously died. On the protest made by the wife (p. w. 1), the appellant was further infuriated and gave two to three blows by the said wooden rafter, but fortunately she grappled the appellant as a result of which he could not inflict further blows and threw the wooden bar and took to his heels. After a while, one Jogendranath Pradhan (p. w. 5) came to the spot and immediately rushed to the police station and explained the incident verbally to the I. I. C. Aska P. S., who swung into action and proceeded to the spot, sent the injured as well as the deceased to the hospital, conducted the inquest over the dead body in presence of witnesses, called a photographer to take a snap of the place of occurrence, seized the wooden rafter, examined the material witnesses and placed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate. After commitment, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 302/307; I. P. C. against the appellant and after examining the witnesses held the appellant guilty under sections 302 and 323, I. P. C. and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) IN order to sustain a conviction against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses including his mother, who was the principal witness in this case. P. w. 1 is said to be the star witness of the prosecution. Her husband was a victim in the incident. The appellant is her son. In this back ground, it is not expected of p. w. 1 to falsely implicate her own son. P. w. 1 presented a graphic picture of the incident in course of hearing. She has stated that on the fateful afternoon, the deceased as well as herself were sleeping in the outer room of their house, but when she woke up after hearing a sound, found the accused having assaulted her husband on his head on the right side of the ear. She also noticed the deceased was sinking down after receiving severe injury on his head. The accused at that time was holding a wooden bar (ADAGEDA) (M.O.I). When she tried to protest him, the latter also gave two to three blows by M.O.I, on her back as a reason whereof she received bleeding injury. Then the appellant threw away the wooden bar and left the place. She also proved that there was bad blood and rancour between the deceased and the appellant when the latter demanded, share from the properties, but the deceased was agreeable to give a piece of homestead, but not the house.