GAURI SHANKAR PADHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 66/22 of 1994, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as unfolded in course of trial, is as follows : P.W. 1, Sanatan Behera being informed by his son, Kailash Behera (P.W. 5) that some culprits of village Dumerpali were assaulting his brother Minaketan, who was having a betel shop in front of the M.E. School of the village, immediately rushed towards the spot. Standing at a little distance from the betel shop, he saw that a power tiller, belonging to the appellants was parked in front of the said betel shop. The appellants however challenged the informant by using intemporate language asking him not to proceed further. At that time, Minaketan was lying by the side of the road in a pool of blood. After the appellant left the spot P.W. 1 went near Minaketan, took him in lap and noticed him alive. Therefore, P.W.1 asked the injured Minaketan as to who were his assailants, to which he replied in presence of P.Ws. 3, 4, and 10 that the appellants had caused those injuries. Immediately thereafter, he collapsed. P.W. 1 went to the house of the village Gramarakhi and informed about the incident. Thereafter, he proceeded towards the town police station. The O.I.C. Sasan Police Station (P.W.26) under whose Jurisdiction the incident had occurred came incidentally to the Town Police Station, before whom P.W. 1 lodged the report. The O.I.C. Sasan Police Station on the verbal information of P.W.1 recorded the report, which he treated as FIR. The informant has proved the FIR which has been marked as Ext. 1. In the night a constable was deputed to guard the dead body. On the following morning, P.W.26, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body, despatched the same for post mortem examination, seized blood stained earth and sample earth, examined the witnesses, and arrested the appellants. The appellants while in custody made a discovery statement, on the basis of which the sword (M.O.I) and the Bhujalis (M.Os. II and III) were seized. The blood stained earth, sample earth, weapons of offence and other incriminating materials were, sent to the Chemical Analyst for scientific examination. On closure of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and 506/34, IPC for causing the murder of Minaketan and criminal intimidation to P.W. 1.

(3.) MR . B. P. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the appellants by criticising the judgment of the trial Court strongly urged that the trial Court should not have laid undue emphasis on the testimony of P.W.1. Apart from the fact that P.W. 1 is a close relation of the deceased, there are other inconsistencies and contradictions between the F.I.R, story and his evidence. Thus in the aforesaid situation, the testimony of P.W. 1 does not inspire belief.