BULI DEI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for life and R. I. for one year respectively, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about midnight on 24 -4 -61 the appellant murdered deceased Gopi Padhan. Gopi Padhan was the younger brother of Raghu Padhan, the husband of the appellant Buli Dei. The brothers were living separate in separate houses having joint cultivation. Gopi Padhan had a wife Kalika and a concubine Asheli (P. W. 1). On the night of occurrence Asheli slept on the Danda Verandah of Gopi Padhan's house and Gopi Padhan was sleeping with his son Mamdeb aged about 10 years on a khatia in the Danda at a distance of two cubits apart from his own verandah. Chaitan Padhan (P. W. 2) and Narsingh Behera (P. W. 3) are the front -door neighbours of Gopi Padhan. They were sleeping on their own verandahs. At about midnight Asheli made a shriek as her left middle finger was cut by appellant. Soon after she saw the appellant giving a thrust with a Gupti into the throat of Gopi Padhan. Gopi Padhan groaned and caught hold of the Gupti, but the appellant dragged the Gupti and gave another thrust with the gupti on the right side rib of Gopi. Gopi thereafter moved a few cubits and fell down in the Danda in front of the house of one Benu Rout, and died. On the protest of Chaitan and Narsingha asking the accused not to commit the dastardly act the appellant gave a blow with the gupti on the left temporal region of Chaitan. When the appellant was trying to give a second blow, Chaitan raised up his left hand and the gupti hit the portion between the left index finger and the left middle finger. Narsingh caught hold of the appellant in his arm from her backside and Chaitan caught hold of her tuft of hairs. Narasingh snatched away the Gupti from her hands. Then Raghu Padhan, the husband of the appellant, was called and Raghu and his mother -in -law took Bull from Chaitan and Narsingh inside the house. Thereafter several villagers gathered on the spot. Buli was found absent. Somehow the Officer -in -charge of Gania Police Station got information that some person in village Kishoreprasad had been killed. On his arrival a search was made of the appellant who was found in village Indupata at a distance of one furlong from Kishoreprasad and was brought before the officer -in -charge.

(3.) P . Ws. 1 to 3 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 1 the concubine of the deceased was sleeping on the verandah of the deceased and the deceased was sleeping in the Danda. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the front -door neighbours. Nothing substantial has been established in cross examination against any one of these witnesses as to why they would falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious charge. It was in the month of April. The prosecution story is highly probable that P. Ws. 1 to 3 must have slept on their verandah on account of heat. It has been pointed out that P. W. 1 did not mention about all the injuries in the F. I. R. For instance, P. W. 1 did not mention of injury No. 1 on the nose extending from the bridge of and also did not mention about the puncture wound on the right side of the abdomen. Similarly the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses as to whether the appellant went near P. W. 2 and 3 to attack them or P. Ws. 2 and 3 came near Gopi Padhan and were attacked by the appellant has been shown to be serious to cast a reflection on the so -called prosecution story.