RAJMAN BHATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Sessions Case No.30 of 2000 (S.C. 46/1999 of S.J.), has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) From the allegations made in the F.I.R and the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, it appears that the deceased-Lakhan Meher used to sale tobacco by attending different weekly markets. On 2.10.1998 at about 11 A.M., he had gone to Phupugam weekly market in a cycle to sell tobacco. He did not return back to home in the night. On the next day morning, his son, P.W.1, went to his maternal uncle's village in search of the deceased. Having not found the deceased there, while he was coming back, he was informed by one Subash that the deceased was lying dead near San-Ramsa Village on the road side. P.W.1 there after went to the spot with others and found the dead body of the deceased lying by the side of the road near a bush. The cycle and the bag were lying there near the bush. The deceased had sustained injuries on his neck, cheek and other parts of the body. P.W.1 thereafter went to Jhorigam Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. in Annexure-1. In course of investigation, the appellant was arrested, several seizures were made and ultimately charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish the charge examined thirteen witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is one of the sons of deceased, who had lodged the F.I.R. P.W.4 is wife of the deceased and P.W.5 is another son of the deceased. P.W.7 is the Doctor^ who conducted postmortem examination and P.W.8 is the witness on whom much reliance has been placed by the trial Court, who claimed to have seen the appellant dragging the deceased by holding his legs. P.W.13 is the I.O. Plea of defence was complete denial of prosecution case. The trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W.8, who claimed to have seen the appellant dragging the deceased by holding his legs and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 to the effect that there was previous enmity between the appellant and deceased, found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.