SUKURIA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the' judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.5.2003 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Chhatrapur in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2002.

(2.) The occurrence happened at about 2.00 p.m. on 15.6.2002 in riverbed of Rushikulya under Chhatrapur P.S. Malati Naik (PW2), who happens to be the daughter of the deceased is the informant. The deceased was staying in the house of Malati Naik (PW2) situated at village Bahalpur since five years prior to the date of occurrence after he left the house of his son for some dissension with his son. He was in receipt of old age pension of Rs. 100. On the 15th day of every month he used to go to Bada Madhapur for receiving the said old age pension. In the month preceding next the date of occurrence the appellant had picked up quarrel with the deceased when he had been to Bada Madhapur for receiving the old age pension. The cause of such alleged to be the practice of sorcery by the deceased on one of the daughter of the appellant. The appellant confronted the deceased about his such conduct and asked him to undo the effect of sorcery. The deceased, however, denied the allegation leading to quarrel between them. On the date of occurrence the deceased left the house of his daughter (PW2) at about 9.00 a.m. and went to Bada Madhapur for receiving the old age pension. He usually returns by 12.00 noon to 1.00 p.m. On the date of oc-currence PW2 went in search of her father, when he (deceased) did not return till 2.00 prrt. She (PW2) took the route in which her father had gone. On her way towards Hansapur vi1lage, she (PW2) found her father struggling for his life in the river bed and saw the appellant fleeing away from the spot. She started weeping loudly there seeing the condition of her father, who breathed his last immediately on her arrival. At about 3.00 p.m. some villagers came to the river for bathing and PW2 narrated about the incident before them. PW3 G. Balraju and PW4 Hari Naik are two such persons before whom PW2 is state to have narrated about the incident. PW4, who is the Grama Rakshi telephoned to the local police and the police reached at the spot at about evening. On reaching of the police party PW2 lodged the FIR at spot on being scribed by Niranjan Padhi (PW5). On the basis of the FIR the case was registered. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed implicating the appellant in offence under Section 302, IPC.

(3.) Prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove the charge. Besides the witnesses introduced in the preceding paragraph PW8, is the elder sister of PW2 who lives in another village called Molada at a distance of one mile from the spot village. PWs 6 and 9 are witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. PW7 is a constable, who guarded the dead body overnight. He is also a witness to inquest over the dead body and he took the dead body for post mortem, examination. PW1 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination. PW10 is the Investigating Officer.