PRATAP CHANDRA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 15.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 71/15 of 2002/03 convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, as revealed from the evidence of the witnesses, is that on 17.11.2001 at about 7.30 A.M. when deceased Nanda Kishore Parida was passing by a bicycle, the appellant suddenly appeared with a pickaxe ('Gainti') and assaulted the deceased. As a result of such assault, the deceased sustained injuries and died at the spot. The appellant thereafter pressed the bicycle on the body of the deceased and fled away. P.W.1, who was standing in front of her house, saw the occurrence and informed P.W.3, her son, about the said occurrence. P.W.3 thereafter informed the other witnesses and, P.W.2, a co-villager went to the Police Station along with the village 'Choukidar' Biswanath Mahanta (P.W.6) and lodged F.I.R. at Turumunga P.S. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined twelve witnesses, but none was examined on behalf of the appellant, though plea of the appellant was denial of the entire prosecution allegation. Out of the twelve witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the informant and is a post occurrence witness. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and he is also a post occurrence witness. P.W.4 is a witness to seizure of the weapon of offence and also had come to the spot after the deceased was assaulted. P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure, vide Ext.4. P.W.6 is the Grama Rakhi, who, after being informed, came to the spot, found the dead body of the deceased and accompanied P.W.2 for lodging F.I.R. at the P.S., P.W.7 is a witness to the seizure in Ext.3. P.W.8 is the son of the deceased, who came to the village after hearing about the incident. P.W.9 is the doctor, who examined the blood group of the appellant, P.W.10 is a witness to the seizure in Ext.9, P.W.11 is the I.O. and P.W.12 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination.