MAYADHAR PARAMANIK Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant ' was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his paternal uncle Sira Paramanik, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The deceased Sira Paramanik and his two brothers Nira Paramanik and Dinabandhu Paramanik had separated from one another long before the occurrence. Nira is dead and the Appellant Mayadhar is his son The deceased Sira bad his residential house at a distance from the house of Mayadhar and Dinabandhu. Near about the house of the accused, Dinabandhu bad a vacant piece of land. As Sira wanted to shift to this place, be was permitted by Dinabandhu to put up his residential house on this vacant piece of land and Sira took up construction of the house on this land on a Tuesday in the month of Baisakh in the year 1968. The accused objected to this and there was some alliteration between him and Sira. The next day, that is, on 17 -4 -1968 the Appellant went inside his village to call some Bhadraloks and he came back with them to the spot. Dinabandhu also came there. On finding so many persons at the spot, Sira questioned the accused why they had all come, whereupon, the Appellant picked up a Barsi lying on the ground and gave a blow with the blunt side of it on the head of Sira who fell down senseless. Sira was thereafter removed to the Keonjhar hospital where he died a few hours after his admission. First Information was lodged by Dinabandhu in the Thana, and after necessary investigation, the Appellant was put on trial.

(2.) THE Appellant denied having committed the offence. He stated that on the night preceding the occurrence, Sirs who was dead drunk came to his (Appellant 's) house, unhinged the door leaves and entered into the house with a view to assault him. Out of fear the Appellant ran away from his house and took shelter in the house of his neighbour. On the next morning, when his mother was enquiring as to who caused the damage to her door leaves, Sira came out of his house, rebuked her in filthy language and pelted clods of earth and pieces of wood at her. As the Appellant protested, Sira ran to him with a Barsi in band. The Appellant caught hold of the Barsi and there ensued a struggle between them in course of which the Barsi somehow struck the head of the deceased.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the evidence of these eye -witnesses and all of them have stated that the Appellant picked up the Barsi and dealt a blow with the blunt edge of it on the head of Sira. None of them said that before this assault Sira had thrown any clods of earth or pieces of wood at the mother of the Appellant, although all these witnesses did say that by the time the Appellant arrived at the spot with the Bhadraloks, a quarrel was going on between the Appellant 's mother and Sira. Nothing has been elicited in the cross -examination of these witnesses to indicate that they had any motive to depose against the Appellant. p.w. 1 is the Appellants paternal uncle (Dinabandhu) and p.ws. 3 to 6 are the Bhadraloks whom the Appellant himself had called to the spot. We are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Appellant himself picked up the Barsi which was lying at the spot and dealt a blow with the blunt edge of it on Sira 's head.