GOVINDA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the sole appellant Govinda Naik seeks to challenge the judgment dated 29-6-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1994 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively, with direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-2-1993 at about 8.30 A.M. P.W. 1 Sunasingh Majhi being the son of Dhanful Majhi lodged an information at Kashipur Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the previous Tuesday in the morning his father Dhanful Majhi (since deceased) had gone to the house of the appellant at village Pinadusi. As the deceased did not return till the evening, P.W. 1 along with his co-villager Jaisingh Majhi went to the village of the appellant when (where) the appellant told him that the deceased along with his uncle of village Barakaudi had gone towards the village of the informant. On being so told, the informant along with said Jaisingh Majhi came back to their village. On returning to the village, the informant could learn that the deceased had not returned back home till then. Then again said Jaisingh Majhi along with one Pisaku Majhi went to the village Barakaudi again and returned to the village of the informant in the next afternoon and informed him that the informant's uncle had left his father in village Katikhaman on the previous Tuesday in the afternoon. On learning this, the informant along with Mania Majhi, Bisu Lohara and some others went to the village Katikhaman in search of his father. But, despite searching for his father in the said village the deceased could not be traced out. Jogendra Naik being the ex-Sarpanch of the said village told the informant that the appellant had killed the deceased on Tuesday and had concealed the deadbody some where. Accordingly, the informant and others searched for the deadbody of the deceased, but failed to trace him out. On the previous Wednesday the appellant was making hue and cry in the village stating that he had killed the deceased and this statement made by the appellant was heard by Daitari Naik and Narendra Naik. Out of fear, the informant could not ask the appellant about this matter. In the said complaint, it was further alleged by the informant that the appellant had killed the deceased and the deadbody of the deceased could not be traced. On the basis of the said oral complaint lodged by P.W. 1, a case under Sections 302 and 201, IPC was registered against the appellant at the said Police Station. The police after usual investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/201, IPC. In usual course the case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore. On perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court framed two charges under sections 302 and 201, IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) In course of trial, in all eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was that of simple denial of the prosecution case, as alleged.