PRASKA LAKU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No.30 of 1997 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that about 15 to 16 years prior to the date of occurrence the appellant had been convicted for commission of murder of one Dhanapati Takri and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. After serving sentence for about 15 years he was released and started staying with the deceased, who is his elder brother. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the appellant was frequently quarrelling with the deceased on petty matters and on 8.2.1996 at about 8.00 P.M. the wife of the deceased P.W.6 served rice and mutton curry to the deceased first. Taking exception to such conduct of P.W.6, the appellant started quarrelling and assaulted the deceased by means of an axe. Due to such assault the deceased fell down whereafter the appellant cut the throat of the deceased by means of a knife causing instantaneous death of the deceased. Immediately after the occurrence wife of the deceased P.W.6 informed the village Barika P.W.1 and the village Nayak P.W.2. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and called other villagers and went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead with profuse bleeding injuries and also saw the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased and washing the knife which was stained with blood by water. When the villagers asked the appellant as to why he committed murder of his brother, he stated that since P.W.6 served mutton and rice first to her husband and she delayed in serving food to him, he shouted and when the deceased picked up quarrel, he got annoyed and assaulted him. Thereafter P.W.2 the headman of the village being accompanied by some villagers went to the Muniguda Police Station and orally reported about the occurrence at about 7.30 A.M. on 9.2.1996. The said oral report was reducedinto writing by P.W.9, O.I.C., Muniguda P.S., a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charge, examined nine witnesses, but none was examined on behalf of the appellant. The plea of the appellant is complete denial to the allegation of the prosecution. The trial court relying on the evidence of eye witness P.W.6 who happens to be the wife of the deceased and sister -in -law of the appellant coupled with the evidence with regard to extra -judicial confession and leading to recovery of weapons of offence found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.