BUDHIMANTA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of patricide. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.6.1999 at about 11 A.M. P.W.1 went to their land situated near their house to see whether there was water logging in the land. Prior to that, her father (deceased) had cut the ridge to let off water in order to make the land fit for seedling. P.W.1 found that there was stagnation of water in the land as the cut portion had been closed. Seeing that P.W.1 shouted. Hearing the voice of P.W.1, the deceased went to the land and started abusing. At this, the appellant came with a wooden baton and dealt blows on the head of the deceased for which the deceased sustained injuries. Accused -Achuta went there with a dry palm branch. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased, lodged the F.I.R. before Kamakhyanagar Police Station. Police registered the case under Sections 341/294/325/506/34, IPC. The police came to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital and after one day of the occurrence, the injured succumbed to the injuries. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302/34, IPC against the present appellant and accused -Achuta by P.W.5. The plea of the appellant was complete denial.

(2.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including two doctors and three Investigating Officers and exhibited ten documents. On the other hand the defence examined none. On completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal convicted the present appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were the eye -witnesses to the occurrence and acquitted Achuta Naik, the other co -accused.

(4.) Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial court on the following grounds; (a) The instant case is not coming under Section 302, IPC and it is coming under the purview of Section 325, IPC since the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of a baton which is not a deadly weapon. The doctor (P.W.7) in the cross -examination also admitted that the injuries were possible by fall on hard and rough surface or may also be caused due to dashing against hard and rough substance. (b) There are major contradictions in the evidence of eye -witnesses, who are, moreover interested witnesses, being daughter and widow of the deceased.