KULAMANI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th January, 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 92 of 1992 convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 10.2.1992 in the morning hours the Appellant assaulted his mother and sister. After this incident, the mother and sister of the Appellant went to the house of the deceased to take shelter. Soon thereafter, the Appellant came to the house of the deceased and started shouting. In order to pacify the Appellant, when the deceased came out of his house, the Appellant dealt several blows by means of a bell metal pot (Lota) on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and fell down on the ground. A few moments thereafter, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 5 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

(3.) MISS . D. Mohapatra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenges the order conviction and sentence on the ground that though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence, they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that as per the prosecution case, the Appellant was of unsound mind when the occurrence took place. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court should have held that at the spur of the moment the Appellant lost control over himself and assaulted the deceased without any intention of causing death. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that several injuries were sustained by the deceased and the Lata by means of which the Appellant had assaulted contained blood stains and the Lungi used by the Appellant also contained bloods stains of human origin and, therefore, under these circumstances, even if the eye witnesses are disbelieved, the order of conviction and sentence should be maintained.