RAMIA GAUDO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants stood prosecuted for commission of murder of one Lopinga Mallik of village Puila Sahi at Gumapada Patharabania jungle on 4.9.93 at 6.00 P.M. in furtherance of their common intention and further in the same course of action caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by having concealed the dead body inside a bush of that jungle with the intention to screen the evidence of murder.

(2.) THE prosecution story in bravity is as follows ; That on 4.9.93 at 6.00 P.M. deceased Lopinga Mallik was returning from Puila sahi with Dahala Mallik and his wife. They came to village Barakhamrna. Appellants Ramia Gaudo and Lundu Gaudo of village Sakedi and Gatingia respectively were standing near the house of Rama Pradhan of village Barakhamma. The deceased as well as the appellants so also the wife of the deceased were known to each other prior to the incident. The appellants suggested the deceased Lopinga Mallik to accompany them to village Gatingia. Therefore, Dahaia and his wife left the deceased in the company of the appellants Ramia Gaudo and Lundu Gaudo. On the way, it appears, both the appellants committed the murder of Lopinga with the help of a stone and concealed the dead body inside a bush to screen the offence of murder. The dead body was discovered by the villagers, who informed the Sarpanch, Neelambar Patra, on 5.9.93 and accordingly a U.D. Case was registered for the death of Lopinga Maliik vide U.D. Case No. 9/93 of Balliguda P.S.. Enquiry was thereafter conducted. Post mortem examination over the dead body of Lopinga was also held. A stone which was lying near the dead body in addition to a 'badi' (stick) was also seized. The I.O. seized the wearing apparel of the deceased. The nail clippings of the accused Ramia Gaudo and Lundu Gaudo were collected. The napkin belonging to appellant Ramia Gaudo containing human blood of 'B' Group was also seized. In course of enquiry the police unearthed the involvement of the appellants on the basis of the eye witnesses account so also the extra judicial confession and accordingly a case was registered UnderSections 302, 20134 I.P.C..

(3.) THE learned State defence counsel has argued with strong intensity of conviction that although there are so many inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses, but unfortunately the learned trial Court overlooked such inconsistencies and or contradictions, and mechanically on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3 recorded the order of conviction against the appellants. It has been further argued that in evidence it has been stated by the Sarpanch of the village Neelambar Patra who has been examined as P.W.1, that the report was lodged on 5.9.93 at 4.00 P.M., but before that a constable was already deputed to guard the dead body. The wife of the deceased was also present at the police station. In that event why the names of the assailants of her husband were not disclosed. It has been strongly contended that the names of the assailants were also not disclosed in the F.I.R. The learned trial court has adopted two standards one for appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 and the other for appreciating the evidence of P.W.3. Both the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have in the same breath slated about the involvement of these appellants. In case P.W.2 was found to be unreliable how P.W.3 will be believed so as to record an order of conviction against them. It has been further argued that the report of the serologist cannot alone be a ground for holding the appellants guilty which at the best be used as a corroborative evidence. Therefore the trial court's judgment having suffered from several inconsistencies, legal as well as factual infirmities, the appellants should accordingly be acquitted of the charges.