NARAYAN PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting the appellant Under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant and three other accused persons were tried for commission of offence Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but on consideration of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Under Section 302 of the Penal Code and acquitted the other 3 accused persons of the charges.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on the day preceding the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.10.1992 at about 4 P.M. a quarrel ensued between the appellant Narayana on one hand and the informant -P.W.4 Baikuntha on the other. During course of such quarrel the appellant assaulted the informant. The informant reported about the incident in Ghasipura Police Station, on the basis of which G.R. Case No. 378/1992 had been registered in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur and the appellant was convicted and sentenced in that case. Being enraged due to such conviction, the appellant hatched up a conspiracy with the other three accused persons to set the informant (p.w.4) right and such conspiracy was witnessed by P.W.5. On the date of occurrence the informant sent his brother (since deceased) to the paddy field for removing grass and while the deceased was engaged in removal of grass, it is alleged that the accused persons including the appellant came there and in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the deceased resulting in instantaneous death. The matter was reported at the Police Camp at 8 P.M. On 22.10.1992 and a formal F.I.R. was registered at Ghasipura Police Station on the same day at 11.30 P.M. Considering the allegation made in the F.I.R. the case was registered for commission of offence Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and three other accused persons for the offences mentioned above.

(3.) SHRI Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the so called eye witnesses namely, P. Ws. 1,6 and 7 were examined by the Police one month after the occurrence and in their statement Under Section 161 Cr. P.C. they had not stated to have seen the occurrence and only in Court they stated to have seen the occurrence. This being the state of affair so far as these three witnesses are concerned, it was contended by Shri Dhal that there is no reason to rely on P. Ws. 1,6 and 7. He also submitted that P.W.9 who also claimed to be an o eye witness to the occurrence has not stated before the I.O. to have seen the occurrence and accordingly he should not be also relied upon. Shri Dhal also contended that the post mortem report proved by P.W.2 belies the prosecution story altogether, and therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is to be set aside. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, relied upon the evidence of P.W.9 and stated that there is no reason to disbelieve this witness and the Sessions Judge rightly believed the said witness and convicted the appellant for commission of offence Under Section 302 of the Penal Code.