LAWS(ORI)-2003-1-47

MUNA JANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On January 22, 2003
MUNA JANI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14/12/1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur convicting the appellant u/S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998.

(2.) Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the short facts apparent from the F.I.R. are that the house of the injured is in front of the house of the sister of the accused and there was a dispute between the wife of the injured and sister of the accused regarding the drying of paddy on the public road near the house. It is stated that the wife of the accused had spread paddy on the road to dry the same and Satyabhama, the sister of the accused, poured water on the same, as a result of which both of them started quarrelling with each other. Satyabhama threatened the wife of the informant, Laxmi Amanatya, that her brother Muna Jani would kill them. While the matter stood thus on 26-1-1998 at about 7 p.m. when the injured came out of his house, accused, Krishna Acharya along with accused, Muna Jani caught hold of him and it is alleged that Muna Jani took out a knife and stabbed him, thereby causing him grievous injury. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged on the 26/01/1998, G. R. Case No. 33/1998 was initiated against four accused persons and after investigation, the said case was committed to the Court of Session and was registered as Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998.

(3.) To substantiate the case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 was the informant, P.W. 6 was the injured, P.W. 8 was the Investigating Officer, P.W. 5 was the Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration said to have been made by P.W. 6 (though P.W. 6 survived) and P.W. 2 was an independent witness, who turned hostile. P.Ws. 4 and 9 were the Medical Officers. All other witnesses were independent after-occurrence witnesses. The prosecution also exhibited the injury report and other documents.