LAWS(ORI)-2013-7-84

KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On July 25, 2013
Krushna Chandra Samal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dtd. 07.5.1991 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge - cum -Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T Case No. 6/186 of 1990 convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. & sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.3.1990 one Purna Chandra Samal told something to the elder brother of the Appellant, for which there was ill feeling between the Appellant & Purna. On 18.3.1990 at about 6.00 P.M. the Appellant came with a knife & challenged Purna regarding the earlier incident & tried to kill him. At that time Purna was holding a baby & left the place to leave the baby in the house of one Bibhuti & came back. Thereafter, the Appellant chased Purna & Purna caught hold of the hairs of the Appellant. The Appellant stabbed on the chest of Purna & thereafter to his stomach by means of a knife, as a result of which Purna fell down sustaining bleeding injuries. Thereafter, Purna was shifted to Barang Hospital for treatment on a Scooter, where the Doctor declared him dead. After the occurrence, the Appellant threw the knife on the spot & ran away. On the basis of the F.I.R, lodged by the informant -P.W. 10, the brother of the deceased, Saheed Nagar PS Case No. 182 of 1990 was registered & investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the Appellant.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as eighteen witnesses & exhibited several documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 13. The weapon of offence was marked as M.O. I & wearing apparels were marked as M.O. II to M.O. VI. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.Ws. 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 3, 4 & 5 were the witnesses to the seizure. P.Ws. 6 & 7 were the Scientific Officers of State F.S.L., Rasulgarh. P.W. 8 was the Constable, who produced the wearing apparels of the deceased for chemical examination & post mortem. P.Ws. 10 & 11 were the post occurrence witnesses. P.W. 15 was the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased & P.W. 18 was the Investigating Officer. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the prosecution case. The Appellant neither has examined any witness nor has he exhibited any document.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that though the Appellant came to the spot with a knife, immediately he did not assault the deceased rather he had the intention to give a threatening to the deceased only, for which the Appellant allowed the deceased to leave the baby & came back. He further submits that as the deceased caught hold the hairs of the Appellant, the deceased provoked the Appellant & on such provocation the Appellant gave stab blows on the chest & stomach of the deceased, therefore, the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in law & need to be set aside.