SRAMBUTIKA MADHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 103 of 1993 dated 10.11.1994 has been assailed in this appeal.

(2.) THE brevity of the prosecution story is as follows : That on 21.12.1992 at about 6.00 P.M. the appellant in the company of the deceased holding an axe and a lathi respectively went towards the bari of one Langesa for consuming date -palm juice (Khajuri tadi). At that time some villagers including P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 were sitting near a fire in front of the house of one Dandi which was situated at a distance of about 40 to 50 cubits from the 'bari' of Langesa. P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 heard an outcry 'Marigali, Marigali' (in Oriya). So they rushed towards the 'bari' of Langesa from the place of fire and noticed the deceased lying dead in that bari sustaining bleeding injury on his right shoulder. At their sight, the appellant was running away throwing the axe near the deceased. P.W. 2 chased and over - powered the appellant and thereafter apprehended him. All the witnesses tied the appellant whereafter he confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased Mambalaka Badeda. A report was subsequently lodged by P.W. 1, the cousin brother of the deceased before the O.I.C. Gudari Police Station and accordingly a case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The O.I.C. proceeded to the spot, arrested the appellant held inquest over the dead body, seized the axe and lathi, collected the blood stained earth and the sample earth, and collected the blood stained clothes of the accused - appellant so also his nail clippings through P.W. 3, the doctor. He sent the dead body for post - mortem examination through P.W. 4. The doctor, P.W. 5, conducted autopsy over the dead body 3 days after the incident. After closure of investigation the I.O. placed the charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) AT the outset we will have to consider whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or natural. From the evidence of P.W. 5 there can be room for doubt that the deceased died out of injuries which were ante mortem in nature, and in ordinary course of nature such injuries were sufficient to cause death. In view of such unimpeachable medical evidence it has been established by the prosecution that the deceased met with a homicidal death.