RAMACHANDRA MOHANTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of conviction for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short, the I.P.C.) and the sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Rourkela, is assailed by Ramachandra Mohanta (hereinafter referred to as the accused). He along the two others (since acquitted) stood charged for the offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C.

(2.) In a nut shell, the prosecution case is that on 30th April, 1988 at about 1.15 p.m. Harish Chandra Acharya (hereinafter referred to as the Tdeceased) who was the Assistant Manager, Hot Strip Mill, Rourkela Steel Plant. Rourkela went inside the underground cellar of the above Hot Strip Mill in order to make water. There the accused persons attacked him the a knife the common intention to kill him. The deceased was severely injured and shouted for help. Hearing his shout, several other employees rushed inside the cellar and found him lying in a pool of blood. He was removed to the Plant Medical Unit inside the Rourkela Steel Plant, but the doctor in charge of that Medical unit referred the case to Ispat General Hospital (I.G.H.) where the doctor declared him dead. Since it was a case of homicide - the authorities of the Rourkela Steel Plant informed the police and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, it came to light that the accused was annoyed with the deceased because the letter made indecent overtures at his lady love Salmi Cramin, the other accused who has been acquitted. It was also noticed that the accused had taken the help of accused Fulsingh Badaiak to kill the deceased. The accused persons denied the entire allegations levelled against them.

(3.) Thirty-two witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. Though the other two accused persons were acquitted for absence of sufficient evidence, the present appellant was convicted on the basis of the evidence relating to recovery of a knife and a torch allegedly pursuant to the information given by him while in custody. For coming to conclusion of accuseds culpability, reliance was placed on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and that of the investigating officer (P.W. 31). Accordingly the accused was found guilty for an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.