PANCHU PANCHANAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302, IPC by the learned 2nd AddI. Sessions Judge, Pun in Sessions Trial No. 31/165 of 1989 directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The short story of the prosecution as unfolded in course of trial is as follows P.W. 8, Hatakishore Lenka of village Kathuaredi lodged a report at Brahmagiri Police Station by stating that on 4/8/1988 around 6.00 P.M. while he was returning from his paddy field situated near Luniary jungle he noticed that some crows were chirping inside the jungle. Out of curiosity he alongwith one Rabi Baral of village Hatia went to the jungle and found an old Khurda napkin (M.O. VII) lying at the entrance of the jungle. They also marked streak of blood in the nearby area. After they advanced a little distance, they found a young man aged about 25 years lying dead beneath a mango tree with pool of blood. Such incident, however, aroused their suspicion that some miscreants must have committed an offence of murder. They returned to their village and disclosed the fact to the other villagers. They further brought to the notice of a constable stationed at their village. On the basis of such information the constable went alongwith them and found the dead body at the scene of occurrence whereupon he guarded the dead body and asked P.W. 8 to lodge the information at Brahmagiri Police Station. Accordingly a report was lodged vide Ext. 3 at the Police Station during the absence of the O.I.C. P.W. 11, the A.S.I. of Brahmagiri Police Station treated the report as FIR, Ext. 3 and registered P.S. Case No. 115 of 1988 and immediately thereafter swung into action. He visited the spot alongwith other staff at 9.15 P.M. with P.W. 8. The dead body was lying in the northern side of the jungle with the face upward. He waited till arrival of the O.I.C., P.W. 21, who went on duty of C.I. of Sadar P.S. and on way back after hearing about the incident he rushed towards the scene of occurrence. He sent an information to the S.P. of Pun for deputing the Police doing and scientific team of D.F.S.L., Pun. He held inquest on 5/8/1988 at about 5.30 A.M. over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report, Ext. 1, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot vide Ext. 2. Even after arrival of the Police dog no clue could be gathered so also the assistance of the scientific team was of no avail. On 5/8/1988 at about 12.30 P.M. P.W. 21 despatched the dead body for post mortem examination to the District headquarters hospital. He recorded the statement of the witness. He conducted a frantic search to apprehend the appellant, but no arrest could be effected. P.W. 21 seized one knife on production by P.W. 6 vide seizure list. Ext. 9. On 6/8/1988 P.W. 21 seized the Lungi (M.O.I) belonging to the deceased and also one cotton string on production by the constable after post mortem examination vide seizure list Ext. 10. It was gathered that the deceased died of injuries which were ante mortem in nature. From the date of occurrence till 5/2/1989 the appellant could not be apprehended. Finally he was arrested on 5/2/1989 and forwarded on 8/2/1989. On the prayer of the prosecution the S.D.J.M., Pun held T.I. Parade of the accused on 14/2/1989 and 21/2/1989. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the appellant.

(3.) The defence plea in the trial Court was one of denial of occurrence and the appellant had claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case.