NARASINGH PARIJA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1994 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, in short 'IPC', and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Brief narration of the prosecution case, stated in the F.I.R., is as follows : On 22.6.1993 at about 7.00 P.M. P.W. 1 Sundar Muduli and the deceased Dambaru Muduli while returning home after witnessing "Gundicha Jatra" at Jeypore, in front of the house of the appellant, the deceased is said to have whistled by mouth. Accordingly, a quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant. P.W. 1 intercepted and separated the deceased as well as the appellant.-Thereafter, they (the deceased and P.W. 1) proceeded to their respective houses. At this juncture, the appellant in a fit of anger chased them by holding a tangi. Out of fear, P.W. 1 ran into his house which is situated near the house of the appellant. But the deceased stayed back in front of the house of P.W. 1 without entering into the house. At that juncture, the appellant assaulted on the neck of the deceased by means of the tangi, as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his neck, fell down on the ground and instantaneously died. After assaulting the deceased, the appellant ran away to his house along with the weapon of offence. P.W. 3, who is the uncle of the deceased, on being informed about the incident, reached the spot and gathered that the appellant had assaulted his nephew. So, he proceeded to Jeypore Sadar Police Station and lodged a report vide Ext. I. The O.I.C., Sadar Police Station, Jeypore after registering a case under Section 302, IPC proceeded to the village. During investigation, he held inquest over the deadbody of Dambaru Muduli in presence of the witnesses, seized blood-stained earth and sample earth, examined the witnesses, arrested the appellant, sent the seized incriminating materials for scientific test and serological examination and after completion of investigation placed chargesheet against the appellant.

(3.) The appellant's plea was one of denial of the occurrence. He has claimed to have been falsely implicated.