BANSIDHAR DAS AND TWO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304, Part -I, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 259/52 of 1987 and sentencing each of the appellants to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 304, Part -I, I.P.C. is under challenge.

(2.) DECEASED Narahari and the appellants 2 and 3 besides the acquitted accused Nabakishore are the sons of appellant No. 1 Bansidhar Das, Narahari having gone on adoption has lost his status as a son in the family of Bansidhar to claim right over the property in the family of Bansidhar. But the fact remains that all of them were remaining within the same campus, the residential accommodation being intervened by a court -yard.

(3.) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye -witnesses, viz. Mataji, the widow of the deceased (P.W.9), Premalata, the daughter of the deceased (P.W.10), Dukhishyam Dalai and Narendra Nayak, two co -villagers (P.W.3 and 8 respectively). As noted above, Ajoy, the son of the deceased was the informant, but in the F.I.R. he has not been portrayed as an eye -witness to the occurrence. The doctor who gave the first treatment was Dr. Manmath Nath Biswal (P.W.13) and the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination is Dr. Anil Kumar Sarangi (P.W.6). Laxmidhar Dalai is the seizure witness relating to seizure of sword and Ekmuna, vide Ext.7 and the Investigating Officer is the P.W.12. As noted in the impugned judgment M.Os. 1 and 2, two bamboo sticks are said to be the weapons of offence for causing death of the deceased.