TAMASIKAR MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.7.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1989 convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE criminal action was set in motion on the basis of the F.I.R., Ext. 9, lodged at Brahma Nigam Police Station on 7.9.1989 at 11 a.m. by one Khirasa Mallik alleging that on 6th September, 1989 at about 11 a.m. the Appellant having stated to have seen an animal (SAMBAR), requested deceased Dandia Mallik and some other co -villagers, namely, Lazara Mallik and Abilo Mallik, to accompany him to 'Dangasi' forest near their village for hunting that animal. The party consisting of the informant, the deceased, the Appellant and Ors. went to the forest, accused having carried his SBML gun with him. Arriving at the forest the Appellant took his position on a stone near a tree and directed the members of the party to go in different directions and divert that animal in his directions as to facilitate hunting. Accordingly, the other members of the party went indifferent directions, but then they could not locate the animal. While the matter stood thus, P.Ws. 3 and 4 heard the sound of a gun fire. They rushed to the spot where the Appellant was standing and found the deceased lying down on the ground struggling for life at a distance of twenty cubits from the stone where the Appellant was standing. When they went near the deceased, the latter told them that the Appellant had fired at him intentionally and requested them to look after his family members. The deceased had sustained pellet injuries on his right chest, right arm, and right eye. While they were carrying him to his house, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way. The Appellant had also accompanied them and was alleged to have told them that what ever had happened could not be undone and it was better to cremate the dead body somewhere in the jungle. But P.Ws. 3 and 4 did not agree to this and brought the dead body to the village. On the next day FIR was lodged. The Police investigated into the case, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem. The autopsy report revealed that the deceased had died due to gun shot injuries and that one of the pellets was lodged in the lungs area of the deceased. The Appellant confessed his guilt before the investigating officer and other witnesses. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet. The Appellant faced trail before the Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1989 for alleged commission of offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Dandia Mallik by firing a gun at him and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for having possessed one SBML gun without the licence authorizing such possession. The Appellant took the plea of denial of the occurrence.

(3.) ON analysis of evidence the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the death of the deceased had occurred due to gun shot injuries. Relying upon the evidence of the doctor P.W.1, the Trial Court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal. After perusing the materials we find no reason to differ from the said conclusions and confirm the same.