BRUSHABHA DIGEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brushabha Digel (hereinafter referred to as the accused) calls in question legality of his conviction punishable for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the IPC ) and sentenced of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Ph u I ban i.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, prosecution case is that on 8/9/1988 at about 5.30 p.m. accused caught hold of the legs of Moli Digel (hereinafter referred to as the Tdeceased), a girl of two years of age, on the road and struck her on the ground as a result she sustained injury on the head and became senseless. Though she was admitted in the District Head Quarters Hospital, Phulbani, she succumbed to injuries. The F.I.R. was lodged at the Phulbani Town Police Station, investigation was undertaken and on completion there of, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced trial the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

(3.) In order to further its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 claimed to be the witnessed who had seem either the whole or part of the ghastly act. A plea of insanity to get protection under section 84, I.P .C. was advanced by the accused and in support of the plea two witnesses were examined. One of them was the Doctor, who attended to the accused while he was detained in jail. Learned trial Judge did not accept the plea of insanity, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.