DEBI CHARAN SUNANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Sessions Case No.36/6 of 2002 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 of the I.P.C. for commission of murder of deceased Jamuna Kharsel.

(2.) P .W.6 is deceaseds father. Informant P.W.1 is P.W.6s brother. It is alleged that occurrence took place in the night of 9/10.7.2001. Prosecution case is that deceased, appellant and informant P.W.1s son were working at Raipur. Prior to the occurrence P.W.1 went to Raipur and stayed with his son for some days. On 8.7.2001 in the evening P.W.1 along with the deceased and the appellant boarded train in Raipur in order to come to his village. They reached Khariar bus stand on 9.7.2001 at about 8.00 A.M. Appellant asked P.W.1 to guard personal belongings of the deceased and left along with the deceased for Khariar town to purchase a torch light. Appellant and deceased having not returned till 10.00 A.M., P.W.1 returned to his house in a bus along with the personal belongings of the deceased and gave the same in his house. On 10.7.2001 at about 6.00 A.M. one of the co -villagers of P.W.1 came to his house and informed that dead body of the deceased was lying on the main road under a kendu tree near village Mandiarucha. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and others went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the main road in a pool of blood. Suspecting the appellant to be the author of the crime, P.W.1 lodged First Information Report Ext.15 at Sinapali Police Station upon which Officer -In -Charge P.W.18 registered the case and took up investigation.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses. Informant P.W.1 and P.W.14 were examined to depose regarding the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. P.Ws. 2, 3, 9 and 10 were examined to depose regarding circumstance of recovery and seizure of knife M.O.IV at the instance of the appellant. Of them, P.W.2 and P.W.10 were declared to be hostile witnesses. P.Ws. 4, 11 and 12 were working at Raipur. P.W.4 deposed to have paid Rs.200/ - to the deceased to give in his house whereas P.Ws. 11 and 12 deposed to have paid Rs.250/ - and Rs.150/ - respectively to the appellant to give the same to their family members. P.W.5 was an inquest witness. P.W.6, deceaseds father, and P.W.7 were post -occurrence witnesses. P.W.8 was a witness to seizure under seizure lists Exts.8, 9 and 10. P.W.13 is a doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He also medically examined the appellant and found superficial cut injuries on right palm and index finger. P.Ws.15 and 16 were police constables who assisted in investigation. P.Ws. 17 and 18 were Investigating Officers. Prosecution also relied upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 19 and material objects M.Os.I to M.O.XII. No defence evidence was adduced. Trial court held the prosecution to have proved the charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 379 of the I.P.C.