BIRANCHI DEHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No.113 -A of 2000 (30 of 2000) 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 rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION allegation is that on 2.7.2000 deceased along with family members had been to their groundnut field. Appellant came there in a naked condition. The family members working in the field seeing the appellant in naked condition ran away from the place. Whenthe deceased protested, appellant suddenly picked up a 'kanka' and assaulted the deceased causing his death at the spot. Matter was reported to the police by Sarat Chandra Sahu(P.W.1) and investigation was taken up. Charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) IN order to prove the charge, 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is a post -occurrence witness and is the brother of the deceased. He lodged the F.I.R. P.W.2 is also a postoccurrence witness and had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence with the weapon of offence. P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest as well as seizure under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.4 is an eyewitness to the occurrence and much importance has been given by the trial court to evidence of this witness. P.W.5 is also a postoccurrence witness who had seen the appellant standing near the deceased immediately after the occurrence with the weapon of offence and he is also nephew of the deceased. Similar is the evidence of P.W.6 who came to the spot after the occurrence and saw the appellant standing with the weapon of offence. P.W.7 happens to be the daughter of the deceased. She had seen the appellant coming in a naked condition and seeing the appellant she along with his mother and sister left the place leaving the 'kanka' at the spot. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post -mortem examination and P.W.9 is the constable who accompanied dead body of the deceased for post -mortem examination. P.W.10 is a witness to seizure and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. Plea of defence is complete denial of the prosecution case. Trial court relying on the evidence of eyewitness P.W.4 and also evidence of post -occurrence witnesses coupled with evidence of P.W.8 found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him thereunder.