JITU @ JITENDRA KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has portrayed a very sad picture where the appellant is said to have killed his own teacher.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief, as stated in the trial Court's judgment is that the deceased Bijay Kumar Pradhan was working as the Headmaster of Kansamunda U.G.M.E. School. He was residing in that village with his family members. The appellant happened to be one of his relations and his house was situated near the house of the deceased. Since he became wayward and had gone astray, his father requested the deceased to take care of his son. Sometimes it so happened that the deceased used to warn/chastise the appellant due to his bad companions, for which the latter threatened the deceased with dire consequences. The appellant left the house some days prior to the occurrence and was seen in the village on 7.8.1992. In the night of occurrence, i.e. on 7.8.1992, the deceased and his wife Pankajini Pradhan (P.W. 4) were sleeping on the verandah on different beds. P.W. 4, on a blow being given by the appellant on her, suddenly woke up and noticed the appellant attempting to give the second blow to her-by an axe, to which she resisted. The appellant then escaped from the spot leaving the axe. By then the deceased, the husband of P.W. 4, was already dead. The appellant was found missing for several days from the village. The matter was reported to police by one Jhasaketan Pradhan, on the basis of which a case was registered under Section 302/307, IPC against the appellant. During investigation, the O.I.C, Kaniha Police Station visited the spot, seized the weapon of offence, seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth, sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination and also sent requisition for medical examination of P.W. 4, sent the incriminating articles for chemical examination and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the appellant for commission of murder of the husband of P.W. 4 and also attempting to do away with her life.

(3.) The plea of the appellant before the Trial Court was one of complete denial of the occurrence. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case.