SANI MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in S.C. No. 43 of 2003 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to undergo imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence is that on 27.9.2002 at about 9.00 P.M. when the deceased Dimbu Majhi was sitting on the verandah of his house along with his wife -P.W. 6 and daughter -P.W. 8, the appellant came with an axe and assaulted on the neck of the deceased. As a result of such assault the deceased died at the spot. With the help of P.Ws. 4 and 5, the wife -P.W. 6 of the deceased could be able to snatch away the axe from the hands of the appellant but the appellant ran away from the spot. The motive behind such assault was that the appellant suspected the deceased of having illicit relationship with his wife. After the incident the matter was reported to the Grama Rakhi and P.W. 4 orally reported the incident at Karlapat Police Out Post under Thuamul Rampur Police Station on 29.9.2002 at about 8.30 P.M. The said oral report was reduced to writing and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the appellant also faced trial for commission of the said offence.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined ten witnesses. Out of them P.W. 4 is the informant and reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. P.W. 6, the wife of the deceased and P.W. 8, the daughter of the deceased are the two eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 5 is also a post occurrence witness. P.W. 7 is a post occurrence witness and was informed about the incident by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. P.W. 3 is a witness to the seizure of nail clippings and P.W. 1 is the Constable, who had taken the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W. 2 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the two Investigating Officers.

(3.) MRS . Pramila Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and such delay having not been explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case cannot be accepted. It was further contended by Mrs. Pramila Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 in relation to snatching of the axe from the hands of the appellant and to that extent the evidence of these three witnesses cannot be believed.