NANI GOPAL PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellant Nani Gopal Panda is directed against the judgment dated 24/11/1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1991 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/6/1991 at about 3.45 P.M., P.W.1 Sakuntala Das lodged a complaint at Soro Police Station stating, inter alia, that her grand uncle-in-law Shyam Sundar Dash had a concubine by name Satyabhama Dash. After death of said Shyam Sundar Dash, Satyabhama Dash was enjoying her share of the property left behind by Shyam Sundar Dash. Said Satyabhama Dash had two daughters. Her elder daughter Basanti Panda died and her second daughter Damayanti Panda being the wife of appellant Nani Gopal Panda was staying in the said property. Litigations were pending between the parties.

(3.) On that very day at about 8. A.M. in the morning on the western part of their house which was in possession of the prosecution party a tubewell was being installed. At about 3 P.M. the appellant and his brother Ganda came and forbade installation of the tubewell. On the date of occurrence when P.W.4 Hrusikesh Mallik and one Mahendra Mallik were engaged in some work in the said house. Hrusikesh came and reported to Muktikanti that the appellant was not allowing them to sink the tubewell. By that time the deceased being the husband of the informant returned from the field and on being informed about this matter proceeded to the spot where the tubewell was being sunk. Along with him P.W.5 Trilochan Das and Pitabas Panigrahi also went to the spot. P.W.1 along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also went to the spot. At that time the said concubine Satyabhama Dash and her daughter Damayanti Panda being wife of the appellant were both urging the appellant to proceed and start assaulting. On being so bidden, the appellant came close to the deceased when the decea-sed told the appellant why he was unnecessarily creating problem? Soon after this, the appellant and his brother Ganda chased the deceased and other members of his family. However. P.W.1 and her brother-in-law were bringing the deceased towards their house and at that time said Satyabhama Dash and her daughter Damayanti Panda being the wife of the appellant again provoked the appellant and on being so provoked the appellant gave a blow with a bamboo stick on the back of the deceased causing bleeding injury on his head. There was profuse bleeding from the injury sustained by the deceased as a result of which he fell down senseless on the ground. As the brother-in-law of the informant objected against such acts, the accused Ganda (since acquitted) dealt a blow by a bamboo on his hand and the appellant caught hold of Trilochan and beat him on his back. The mark of such beating was still visible. This incident was witnessed by other members of the family of P.W.1 as well as labourers namely, three tubewell mechanics and their neighbour Sarangadhar Moharana, P.W.1 further stated in the aforesaid complaint that the appellant made an attempt to kill her husband. As the condition of her husband was found to be quite serious, he was shifted to Soro Hospital for treatment. The accused persons also threatened her brother-in-law and other family members. On the basis of the said complaint, a case under Sections 341/324/506/307/114/34, IPC was registered at the said police station against the appellant and another.