ARJUN NAIK ALIAS KHADIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1994 charged under Sections 452/302/307/324. I.P.C. is the Appellant in this case.

(2.) THE accused was prosecuted for commission of murder of one Hemanta Majhi and also for causing assault on Parabali Makhi (P.W.8) and Sudarsan Majhi (P.W.9) in the night of 7.9.93. The brief narration of the prosecution story which emerged in course of trial is as follows:

(3.) . P.W.8 is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence has lent great assurance to determine the culpability of the Appellant. Apart from it she claimed herself to have been injured in course of the same incident. Her evidence certified that in the month of Bhadraba on Monday mid night the incident had taken place. The Appellant assaulted her son by means of a Tangia (M.O.I) as a result of which her son met an instantaneous death. The deceased and her nephew Sudarsan (P.W.9) were sleeping in the outer verandah whereas she had slept in the other room. When she made an attempt to snatch away the axe from the hand of the Appellant, it had struck her left hand causing bleeding injury. When her nephew tried to over -power the Appellant, the latter aimed the axe at him and it struck on the right ear of P.W.9. In course of the incident when they raised hue and cry P.W.1 reached at the spot. After arrival of P.W.1. P.W.9 gained courage and so both of them caught hold of the Appellant. During her cross -examination a question was put to P.W.8 as to whether she had stated specifically before the I.O. regarding the assault alleged to have been made on the deceased, to which P.W.8 stated that although she did not state before the I.O. about the assault caused by the Appellant, but she had described that the accused had caused injuries on the neck, chest and hand of her deceased son. We found from the evidence of P.W.8 that even though there are some minor discrepancies here and there, but the same did not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. From this it cannot be contended that the genesis of the prosecution story has been distorted. As a matter of fact by examining the evidence of P.W.8 it has further strengthened the prosecution story that the Appellant caused the injuries by an axe on the neck and chest which is supported by the medical evidence as deposed by P.W.6. From the evidence of P.W.6 it is noticed that the deceased Hemanta received four incised external injuries on the neck, chest and right wrist joint. According to P.W.6 all the injuries were ante -mortem in nature and death was due to syncope and haemorrhage and might have been caused by an axe like M.O.I, which was sent to him for examination by the I.O.