BISIKESAN PUJARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal as against the order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, I.P.C.) passed on 2/5/1998 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1997 (Original S.C. No. 375 of 1995 of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore). It appears from the impugned judgment that learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Before dealing with the contention of the parties, we may put in short the fact involved in the case. Muka Naik, the deceased, was found dead on the P.W.D. Road on 20/8/1995 due to some bleeding injury on his head, P.W. 1 Suresh (a son of the deceased) and P.W.2, Mani Khora (a co villager) while returning from a neighbouring village, viz. Sarkarda, saw the dead body and intimated the fact to the wife and other family members of the deceased. Not only the inmates of the house but also son-in-law of the deceased (P.W.6) and other villagers, like P.Ws. 7 and 8 came to the spot. P.W.6 lodged the F.I.R., Ext. 1 and P.W. 15. the Officer-in-Charge undertook the investigation. By the time of spot visit and inquest, there was no clue before the Investigating Officer as to who was the culprit. It is noted in the Case Diary that help of police dog was taken and the police dog led the Investigating team to the house of the appellant wherefrom the accused was taken to the Police custody for interrogation and one axe was-seized from his house. While in police custody appellant made a confessional statement and gave discovery of another axe, i.e. M.O.I., which was seized under Seizure list, Ext.4, and the appellants statement was recorded, vide Ext.5. On the basis of that evidence, further investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was placed and on the basis of that, accused was committed to the Court of Sessions being charged with the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and was asked to face the trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada.

(3.) Prosecution relied on the evidence of 15 witnesses. Out of them, except P.W.3 the rest of the witnesses are post-occurrence witnesses. Out of them P.Ws. 1 and 5 being the sons and P.W. 4 being the wife of the deceased, only stated about the previous land dispute between the deceased and the appellant. P.W.6, as noted above, was the informant. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 were witnesses to the Inquest. P.W. 8 was witness to recovery of the axe, M.O.1, P.Ws. 10 to 13 were witnesses to other seizure list, P.W. 14 was the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 28/1/1995 and proved the Post Mortem Report, Ext. 10. He also examined M.O.1, and gave his report, Ext. 11. As noted above, P.W. 15 was the Investigating Officer. Some of the seized articles were sent to R.F.S.L., Berhampur for chemical analysis and serological test. Ext. 15 is that report and Ext. 16 is the spot map.