MRUTYUNJAYA KONHAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No. 8 of 2002 adding the petitioner as an accused in the Sessions Case and issuing summons for his appearance.

(2.) THE prosecution case as it appears from the record is that while the informant and her husband (deceased) and the children were sleeping inside the drawing room, she heard a sound and saw accused Mitiki in the room. The said accused was armed with a Kati and when the informant raised hulla, the said accused assaulted her husband on hand and head resulting in death of the husband of the informant. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the accused Mitiki alias Sudhir Mukhi for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and in due process the case was committed to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh. In course of trial, P.W.1 was examined on 28.10.2002 and some other witnesses were examined on the said date as well as on 29.10.2002. P.W. 1, 2 and 3 having implicated the present petitioner in the commission of offence and the petitioner not being an accused in the case, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed by Public Prosecutor and on consideration of the said petition as well as the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge added the petitioner as an accused and issued summons to him.

(3.) THE depositions of the three witnesses have been annexed to the revision. P.W.1 is the informant who in her statement before the Court has stated to have seen the petitioner giving one blow with a Kati on her husband and the other accused giving two blows. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, who has stated in his evidence that after hearing the cry of his son he got up and saw the present petitioner and the other accused leaving the spot with Kati. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased who has also stated that she has seen the present petitioner and the other accused escaping from the house. On the basis of such evidence available on record, a prima facie case is positively made out against the present petitioner with regard to his involvement in the offence. The contention of the learned counsel Shri Dhal that during investigation these witnesses had not implicated the petitioner and developed the story at the time of trial can be gone into after conclusion of trial and the value of such evidence can be assessed at that stage.