DAMODAR MEHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bargarh in S.T. No.7/2 of 2003/2002 convicting all the three appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for life and further convicting them for commission of offences under Sections 323/34 and sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for one year. Further both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. is that on 13.12.2000 at about 4.00 P.M., P.W.8 Satpathy Meher was carrying straw through his field servant P.W.4 Sukru Kuanr and P.W.4 after thrashing paddy in the thrashing floor of Debananda Meher, while stacking, some straw fell down on the drain of the appellants and the drain was blocked. The appellants got annoyed, protested and also abused the uncle of P.W.10, the informant. When the uncle of P.W.10 protested, the appellant-Bhakta Meher dealt a kick blow. The uncle of P.W.10, the informant ran to his house and informed about the incident. Thereafter the informant-P.W. 10, his uncle and father went to Thelapada and found the appellants standing on the village road in front of the house of Himalaya Meher-P.W.11 armed with lathi. When father of the informant-P.W.10 asked them as to why they assaulted his brother, there was hot exchange of words between them and all on a sudden the appellant-Bhakta Meher dealt a lathi blow on the head of the uncle of the informant, who sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and fell down. Thereafter, the appellant-Bhabani Meher threw his lathi and brought out a knife from his waist. The said knife was snatched away from him by appellant-Bhakta Meher and he stabbed the chest of the father of the informant-P.W.10. The father of the informant sustained severe bleeding injuries on his chest, fell down on the ground. At that point P.W.11 came and administered water to the father of P.W.10. However, the father of P.W.10 died at the spot. Thereafter the appellants fled away from the place. The informant-P.W.10 lodged an oral report, which was reduced to writing and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302/307/323/34 of I.P.C. and all the appellants faced trial for commission of the said offences.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the charges examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 13 and 14 turned hostile. P.W.3 is the seizure witness and is also witness to inquest. P.Ws.4 and 5 are two-post occurrence witnesses. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who on police requisition medically examined P.Ws.10 and 11. Similarly P.W.9 is another Doctor who on police requisition examined P.W.8. P.W.12 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.8 is an injured eyewitness and P.W.10 is also an injured eyewitness and is the informant in the case. Though P.W.11 was examined as an eyewitness to the occurrence, he did not say anything about the assault on the deceased. P.Ws.15 and 16 are the two Investigating Officers. The plea of appellants was complete denial of the prosecution case.