SANTOSH KUMAR BHUKTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7/8/1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1992 convicting the appellant Santosh Kumar Bhukta under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that P.W. 1 Pradeep Kumar Negi lodged a complaint at Subalaya outpost alleging, inter alia, that on 12/7/1991 around 1 P.M. he came to learn that Budhia Bagh (since deceased) and P.W. 3 Ramesh Bahera were working in Telibandha Ferry Ghat and they went to the other side of the river. At that time, P.W.3 Ramesh Behera was obstructed by the appellant and two others, and the appellant being armed with a Tangia was chasing the deceased Budhia Bagh. As a result of this, the whereabouts of Budhia Bagh was not known till then. It was therefore suspected that the life of Budhia Bagh was in danger. It was also stated in the said complaint that the appellant was a notorious person. The said complaint was forwarded to Boudh Police Station where an F.I.R. under Sections 341/506/34, IPC was registered against the appellant and two others. After usual investigation, Police submitted a charge sheet under Section 302/34, IPC against the appellant and three others.

(3.) In usual course the case was committed to the learned trial Court. On perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The trial Court also framed another charge under Section 302/34, IPC against three other accused persons. In course of trial, in all, 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the appellant two D.Ws., namely, Parama Naga and Bidyadhar Das were examined. Defence of the appellant in course of the trial was a simple denial of the prosecution case as alleged. However, the two D.Ws. examined on behalf of the accused persons stated in their defence about the enmity that the appellant had with P.W. 2, Bhuban Meher. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated. The other three accused persons were acquitted. Hence, the appellant preferred this appeal in this Court.