S LAXMINARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of an FIR lodged by one Brundabati Pangi, G.R. Case No. 290 of 1994 was initiated against the accused -appellant. He was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Ghasi Pangi, husband of the informant. The said G.R. Case was converted to Sessions Case No. 78/84 (122/84 SJ). By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The said judgment is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) BRUNDABATI Pangi (P.W. 1) filed the FIR on 2.5.1984 at the Kolab Outpost at about 2 P.M. stating therein that on the previous night at about 9 P.M. after returning from his work her husband was relaxing on the verandah of his house and P.W. 1 after finishing her cooking was looking after their daughter inside the house. At that time, it is alleged, the accused -appellant who stayed only two houses apart from the house of the informant, came to their house and started quarrelling with her husband. She came there and questioned as to why they were quarrelling, but without paying any heed to that, the accused -appellant dragged the husband of P.W. 1 to the street and assaulted him with an iron rod on his head two to three times. P.W. 1 being alone and as she was holding her daughter could do nothing, but cried. It was stated that some other perso'ns, namely, Bima Maharana, Babaji Sahu, Krushnamurty, Mahadev Swain, Gopi Mali, the wife of a neighbour, and others had witnessed the occurrence. After being assaulted, the husband of P.W. 1 lay on the street in front of his house. P.W. 1 sent word to the brothers of her husband and receiving the information one Tankadhar Pangi, Hari Khara and two other persons came to the spot and took her husband on a cot to hospital, but the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. P.W. 1 thereafter came to the police station and lodged the FIR. In course of trial, to substantiate the case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1 was the widow of the deceased and the only eye -witness. P.W. 2 was the doctor who conducted the post -mortem examination, his report being marked Ext. 1. P.Ws. 3 to 7 were the post -occurrence witnesses. P.W. 12 was the Investigating Officer.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, disbelieved the story advanced by the accused -appellant that as there was a reasonable apprehension in his mind that the deceased would assault him, to save his life the accused -appellant assaulted the deceased with a lathi. He has held that there were more than one injury on the body of the deceased which indicated that more than one stroke might have been given. The Addl. Sessions Judge came to a categorical finding that the strokes given by the accused -appellant could not be said to have been given in exercise of his right of private defence to his body and holding him guilty under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him thereunder.