PATRIC MARKEY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, Sundargarh delivered impugned judgment on 30.4.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2000 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for one year. The convicted accused person thus preferred this appeal from the jail. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant, his wife (P.W.2) and their children were residing in one house at Markey Pada of village Jharbeda. Due to the drinking habit of the appellant, there was strained relationship between the appellant and his son (deceased) as the former was squandering money on drinks. On the date of occurrence, the appellant and the deceased were alone present in their house. While the deceased was lying on a mat, the appellant committed his murder by giving blows by means of an axe on his head, neck and chest. The matter was reported before the O.I.C., Kutra Police Station by the informant (P.W.1). Thereafter, the I.O. searched for the appellant, registered the case and investigated the matter. In course of investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the same for post mortem examination, examined the informant and other witnesses, seized the incriminating material objects like wearing apparels of the deceased and the appellant, weapon of offence, blood stained and sample earth from the spot and upon receipt of post mortem report, he got the weapon of offence examined by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet under Section 302, IPC against the present appellant. The defence plea is one of complete denial.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to prove charge, examined as many as thirteen witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and exhibited 16 documents. From the side of prosecution some materials were proved as material objects. The defence examined none. On completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC basing upon the circumstantial evidence.

(3.) MR . Sk. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contends that P.W.2 is the wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased. She specifically stated that when she left the house at about 2 P.M., at that time, her son Prafulla (deceased) and her husband (appellant) were alone present in the house. There was a dispute between the appellant and deceased as the appellant was in the habit of withdrawing money from the Bank and squandering the same on drinks. The appellant had quarreled with P.W.2 in a drunken condition. From the wearing apparels of the appellant, blood stain was detected by the Chemical Examiner. The appellant did not offer any explanation on this. P.W.8 is a witness to the extra -judicial confession before whom the appellant had confessed his guilt. P.W.13, who is the co -villager, has stated that he heard the cries of Silwanti (since dead). Then he saw that the appellant kept a 'Budia' (Tangia) in the thatched roof of their house and then went away. Therefore, Mr. Zafarulla contends that chain of circumstance being complete, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Lastly, he submits that the present case is clearly covered under Section 302, IPC not under Section 304, IPC.