PITA ALIAS PITABASA GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of I. P. C and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in S. C No. 146 of 2005 has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. 2. P. W. 1-Ranjita Naik happens to be the widow of the deceased.

(2.) She had lodged the report in Hinjili Police Station on the date of occurrence. It is alleged in the F. I. R that the deceased had gone to 'Kotha Ghara' to play cards. At about 11.30 A. M, P. W. 1 heard shouts of her husband and one Aruna Moharana from the side of 'Kotha Ghara'. When she went to 'Kotha Ghara' she saw her husband, the deceased, and Aruna Moharana engaged in verbal altercation on the issue of amount of wage. The said Aruna Moharana was asking the deceased to pay Rs. 5/- to the appellant and the deceased was refusing to pay. At that point of time the appellant holding a piece of wood advanced towards the deceased and started hurling abuses. Apprehending that something may happen, P. W. 1 dragged her husband towards her house. At that point of time, the appellant declared to assault the deceased if Rs. 5/- is not paid to him. P. W. 1 requested the appellant not to assault her husband and promised to give Rs. 5/-. Again a verbal altercation ensue between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant suddenly assaulted on the head of the deceased by means of the said wood, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and lost his sense. There was bleeding from his nostril. The deceased was shifted to Pitala Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of the report from P. W. 1 the case was registered and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of I. P. C for committing murder of the deceased Hina Naik and under Section 323 of I. P. C for causing voluntary hurt to P. W. 1.

(3.) The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to prove the charge. P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and she is also the informant and sole eyewitness to the occurrence. P. W. 2 is a post occurrence witness. P. Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 10 are witnesses to seizures and P. Ws. 4, 5 and 8 are witnesses to inquest. P. W. 7 is the father of the deceased and P. W. 6 is a co-villager. P. W. 12 is the Doctor who admitted the deceased in the Hospital and P. W. 9 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination. P. W. 11 is one of the Investigating Officer, who had made some seizures and P. W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. The plea of defence was complete denial of the prosecution case.