LAWS(ORI)-2002-2-7

DHOBULU SANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On February 06, 2002
DHOBULU SANTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment/order of conviction under Ss. 302/34, IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaypore, in S.C. No. 31 of 1993 (SC No. 12/92) sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as revealed during the trial is as follows :- That on 23-9-1992, Wednesday, at about 8 a.m. deceased Sashi Bhusan Mandal came from his village with a cash of Rs. 2900.00, two gunny bags, one chadar, one lungi, one cloth bag and also one wrist watch of HMT make to purchase dry fish from Jeypore market. While going to Jeypore market, the deceased had to cross-Chhatiguda through the plantation field of O.F.D.C. Ltd. near Bualibeda. It has been averred that he was moving by his Bicycle to catch bus for Jeypore from Village Chhatiguda. He was supposed to return on the following Thursday. Since he did not return home his family members were in frantic search of him. On the following Saturday one Santosh Kumar Sahu, who was a watcher of the Plantation area found a dead body lying inside the Plantation field covered with the branches of tree. Accordingly, he informed the police at Umerkote P.S. upon which U.D. Case No. 38/92 was registered and accordingly enquired into. During the course of enquiry it was ascertained that the death was homicidal in nature. Therefore, P.W. 10 drew up a plain paper FIR marked Ext. 16 in the trial Court on the basis of which a case under S. 302, IPC was registered. The wife and sons of the deceased identified the dead body. In course of further investigation, it was, however, revealed that both the appellants were involved in the commission of murder of Sashi Bhusan Mandal. Accordingly, charge sheet was laid against them under Ss. 302/34, IPC.

(3.) The plea of the appellants before the trial Court was one of complete denial and further they stated to have been falsely implicated in this case.