PRAMOD KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. Case No. 25 of 1995 under Sections 302/323/436 of the Indian Penal Code directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment forlife and also to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/ in default to further rigorous imprisonment for 9 months under Section 302, IPC, but there was no separate sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 323 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE appellant was prosecuted for commission of the offence under Sections 302/307/436, I.P.C. for having caused murder of one Sitaram Patnaik by means of a knife on 30.8.1994 around 10.30. P.M. in village Boida and also for having attempted to cause murder of Smt. Prabhasini Patnaik and Harekrushna Patnaik, It is further stated that the appellant had set fire to the dwelling house of deceased Sitaram Patnaik in the same night at about 1.00 A.M. The appellant and the deceased belonged to the same village. The deceased after retirement from his service as 'Bee Master' settled down in the village Boida and there he started a grocery shop. The house of the appellant was situated at a distance of 70 to 80 meters from the house of the deceased. The appellant was running a grocery shop in the same village. Due to business rivalry, there was bitter relationship between them. On 30.8.1994 at about 10.30 P.M. there was an outcry raised by the members of the appellant's family. The elder brother of the appellant and his sister in law abused deceased Sitaram Patnaik. Deceased Sitaram Patnaik had also retorted to the words of the appellant's brother, Thus there was a hot exchange of words between the deceased on one hand and the brother of the appellant on the other. After a while the deceased Sitaram Patnaik went to a nearby field to answer call of nature. The deceased shouted raising an alarm that the appellant inflicted a stab injury on his person. His wife and two sons on hearing such shrieks raised by the deceased rushed towards him. The wife and the sons of the deceased found the deceased with stabbing injuries on his person and they brought him to their house, After a while out of his inquisitiveness deceased Sitaram Patnaik went out of the house in search of the appellant and the appellant Pramod Kumar Sahu who was hiding himself near the fence of the house of the deceased all on a sudden came out and inflicted penetrating stab wound on the chest of deceased Sitaram Patnaik as a reason whereof he fell down on the ground. The other inmates namely the wife and the sons of the deceased while came to the rescue of deceased Sitaram Patnaik from the clutches of the appellant, he further assaulted P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased with an intention to do away with her life and assaulted P.W. 3, the son of the deceased, While all the inmates including the deceased were in their house the appellant was said to have set fire to their dwelling house. The matter was reported at the Sadar P.S., Phulbani on 31.8,1994 at 4.00 P.M. on the basis ofwhich the O.I.C., Sadar Police Station, Phulbani proceeded for investigation. In course of investigation, he seized blood stained earth and sample earth, half burnt household materials, sent P.W. 1, Smt. Prabhasini Patnaikand P.W. 3, Harekrushna Patnaik for medical examination for the injuries on their persons, held inquest over the deadbody of Sitaram Patnaik and despatched the same to Headquarters Hospital Phulbani for post mortem examination and arrested the appellant. While the appellant was in custody made a discovery statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of which blood stained knife was seized. The Investigating Officer despatched the incriminating materials including the knife for chemical examination and serological test. After closure of investigation, he placed charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) THE plea of the defence was one of denial of occurrence and claimed to have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. There has been no dispute that the deceased met a homicidal death on account of injuries sustained by him. From the evidence of P.W. 10, who conducted post mortem examination it has further transpired that the deceased Sitaram Patnaik sustained the following injuries :