GOLBADAN MAJHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh convicting the appellant under Sections 449 and 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him respectively to undergo R.I. for five years and imprisonment for life.

(2.) Put briefly the facts of the case are these. The appellant and the deceased are separated brothers and living in the same village in adjoining houses. P.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the mother of both the appellant and the deceased. A few months prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant had spent some money for the deceased for his treatment in Birla Medical College Hospital. The appellant continued to ask the deceased to pay back the money, and the deceased was expressing his inability to pay. On this issue there used to be frequent quarrels between the two brothers. On 5-8-1986 in the morning hours at about 6.30 a.m., while the deceased had sat in front of the burning harth, the appellant suddenly came with a Tabia (M.O. I.) and dealt successive blows on the deceased on his head, neck and shoulder, thereby causing bleeding injuries to which the deceased succumbed. P.Ws. 1 and 2 informed the incident to P.W. 3, one of the brothers of the deceased, who proceeded to Bandega Out Post and verbally reported the matter to A.S.I. of Police, P.W. 7 at the out-post. P.W. 7 prepared the plain paper F.I.R. as per Ext. 9 and recorded the incident in the Station Diary entry as per Ext. 10. He sent Ext. 9 to Talsara Police Station for registration and proceeded to the spot for preliminary investigation. P.W. 9 the Officer-in-charge of Talsara P.S. on receipt of the message from P.W. 7 reached the spot, and took charge of the investigation of the case from P.W. 7. P.W. 7 had held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He had also seized the Tabla, M.O.I. from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 8 continued the investigation and eventually submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 31-10-86. The appellant being committed to the Court of Session stood his trial for the offence of murder of the deceased and allied offence and was convicted and sentenced as indicated earlier.

(3.) In support of its case prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 1 and 2 the widow and mother of the deceased respectively are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3 the informant, P.W. 4 a witness to extra judicial confession, P. W. 5 a seizure witness, P.W. 6 the medical officer who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers of the case.