HALO @ JAYMANGAL MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this jail criminal appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 28.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No.231 of 1997 convicting all the three appellants under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 25.07.1997 the dead body of deceased -Gobardhan Majhi with some injuries was found near the land of one Nehru Kisan, which was locally known as 'Chelimunda land. The villagers, who detected the dead body, finding no reason to suspect any foul play, buried the dead body. Later on Baya Majhi (P.W.1) of village -Talibahaldhipa revealed before the Sarpanch, Ward Member and some villagers that he had seen the accused -appellants assaulting the deceased on the land in question. On the advice of the Sarpanch, P.W.1 went to Lephripada Police Station and reported the matter orally before the Officer -in -charge, which was reduced into writing. On the basis of the F.I.R., the Officer -in -charge of the Police station, registered P.S. Case No.41 of 1997 and took up investigation, during the course of which he requisitioned the services of the Tahasildar and in his presence exhumed the dead body of the deceased and thereafter held inquest over the same and prepared the inquest report. He made arrangement for shifting the dead body for postmortem examination, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, seized incriminating articles like blood stained earth, wearing apparels of the accused persons. He also recovered and seized the weapon of offence at the instance of appellant -Jayamangal Majhi and dispatched all the material objects to the RSFL, Sambalpur for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge -sheet against the appellants.

(3.) THE prosecution tried to substantiate the charges by examining 16 witnesses and leading into evidence several documents and material objects. P.W.1, Baya Majhi made disclosure of his eyewitness account before the Ward Member, Sarpanch and some other villagers. P.W.7 is the nephew of P.W.1 and another eyewitness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 2 and 12 are the son and daughter -in -law of the deceased, who spoke about the deceased leaving the house on the previous day of the detention of the dead body. P.Ws. 3 and 10 are the persons before whom P.W.2 had made the aforesaid disclosure. P.Ws. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13 are formal witnesses to the inquest and seizures made by the I.O. during investigation. P.W.6, a seizure witness, has turned hostile. P.W.14 is the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the dead body was disinterred. P.W.15 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer. No evidence at all was led by the appellants in support of their defence.