GHASIRAM GOND Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1994 under Section 302. I.P.C. for commission of murder of one Rajbai are called in question in this appeal.

(2.) THE brevity of the prosecution story as unraveled in course of trial is as follows:

(3.) THE prosecution had altogether examined nine witnesses, of whom. P.W.6 was the informant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 were said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. On a close reading of the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that on the date of occurrence at about 8.00 A.M. he found the accused holding the tuft of hair of the deceased and cut her right side neck by a sickle (M.O.I.) on the road in front of the house of P.W.5 (Chaituram Rout). At that time -P.W.2 (Maguru Rout) and P.W.5 (Chaituram Rout) were also present. P.W.5 detained the Appellant at the spot immediately after the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the ward member and narrated the incident. The deceased then sustained severe bleeding injury on her neck and died instantaneously. M.O.I. was identified to have been held by the Appellant and it was stained with blood. The defence was unable to bring out any circumstance to impeach the evidence of P.W.1. It is true that P.W.1 is a relation of the informant. But they by itself would not be a ground to spurn his evidence.