GAYADHAR ALIAS HAREKRUSHNA BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order/judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1993 hereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for commission for the murder of one Ghanashyam Parida and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE brief history of the prosecution case as unravelled in course of trial is as follows : On 15.11.1992 at about 8.30 A.M. the deceased Ghanashyam Parida, the paternal uncle of informant (P.W.8), had gone to look after his potato field situated in Jiginipur. At that time, the appellant was nourshing his cauliflower field. When the deceased Ghanashyam Parida reached near the land of one Dhanu Samal, which was lying adjacent to the appellant's field, all on a sudden, the appellant dealt blows by means of a spade on the head of the deceased and thereafter ran away with the spade. The incident was witnessed by Sulochana Das (P.W.2), Suresh Kumar Mulia (P.W.3) and Ashok Kumar Swain of Mahespur, Kshetrabasi Baithal. Sanatan Mulia of Khalarda, Sura Bhoi of Purusottampur, Padan Pradhan of Mula Kodinda. After giving the murderous blow on Ghanashyam Parida, the appellant had proceeded towards the village Kusama through 'Mulakodinda Gahira'. Ashok Kumar Swain (P.W.6) Suresh Kumar Mulia (P.W.3), Nakula Rout, Surendra Swain (P.W.5), Akhaya Kumar Patnaik (P.W.4) and Ors. chased the appellant and caught hold of him near village Usuma. It is further stated that the appellant had allegedly confessed before them to have committed the crime. The appellant was thereafter brought to the Thakurghar of village Mahespur. In the meantime, P.W.1 could come to know about the incident, proceeded to the police station and lodged information which was treated as F.I.R. by the O.I.C. Sadar Police Station, who proceeded to village Mahespur, took charge of the accused, visited the spot and examined the witnesses. Ghanashyam Parida after receiving injuries was taken to Mahidharapara P.H.C. where he was declared dead. The I.O. had conducted inquest over the dead body at Mahidharapara P.H.C. and then sent it to the S.C.B. Medical College for postmortem examination. While in custody, the appellant led the I.O. to the place of recovery of the spade and at his instance, it was seized under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The blood stained earth, sample earth and clothes belonging to the deceased were sent for chemical examination. After closure of investigation, chargesheet was placed against the appellant under Section 302, IPC.

(3.) MR . B. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that since ocular evidence is contradictory to the medical evidence, the case of the prosecution should be viewed with suspicion. He has brought to our notice that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is that the deceased had sustained six injuries, out of which injury No. 1 was an incised wound situated on the right side fronto parietal region of scalp, 8 cm. above the right eye. Looking to the evidence of P.W.2, it seems that the appellant had allegedly given blows from behind on the head of the deceased. The other blows had been given on different parts of the body. The other eye witnesses have stated that two blows had been given on the deceased. From the medical evidence, it appears that the deceased received injuries on the head. We are, therefore, not in a position to agree with the contention of Mr. Panda that there was any contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence with regard to the injuries.