GOVINDA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada in Sessions "Mal Case No. 224 of 2000 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.2000 at about 10 p.m. P.W. 1. the informant along with the deceased Biseswar Naik had been to the house of the appellant during day time to settle the dispute, which arose between them. They reached at the house of the appellant and came to know from his wife that the appellant was sleeping. Thereafter, they requested his wife to call the appellant. Suddenly, the appellant came out of the house holding an axe and started dealing blows on the head and back the deceased, as a result of which he fell down. The informant, P.W. 1 thereafter fled away from the spot out of fear and informed the father of the deceased. Thereafter, the villagers assembled at the spot and tried to shift the deceased to the hospital. By that time the vehicle arrived, the deceased had already succumbed to the injuries. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 on these allegations and investigation was taken up. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) Prosecution, in order to establish the charge, examined nine witnesses, P.W. 1 is the informant and sole eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 saw the appellant while running away near the forest and has further stated that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before him. P.W. 3 is the wife of the appellant. Though she has not stated anything about the assault on the deceased, the case of the prosecution that in the night of the occurrence the deceased and P.W. 1 had gone to the house of the appellant, is admitted by her. P.W. 4 is a post-occurrence witness and P.W. 5. father of the deceased is also a post-occurrence witness. P.W. 6 is a witness to the seizure and P.W. 7 is the constable, in whose presence certain articles were seized. P.W. 8 was then the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the F.I.R., conducted investigation of the case and P.W. 9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination. Plea of defence is complete denial of the prosecution case.