MAHENDRA KANHAR Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of conviction dated 31.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. Case No. 28 of 2002 under Section 302, I.P.C. and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.6.2002 at about 11 A.M. at village Sanabanka Pada, the appellant brutally assaulted Ulapi Kanhar (deceased), the wife of his brother, Rajendra Kanhar by means of a 'Tangia' (M.O.I.), as a result of which Ulapi died at the spot, i.e., in her front yard. Thereafter, the appellant left the weapon of offence at the spot and fled away. Subsequently, Jogendra Kanhar (P.W. 1), the elder brother of the appellant lodged a written report before the Boudh Police Station. Basing upon the same, the police registered the case and investigated the matter. During investigation, the I.O. examined the informant, visited the spot, prepared spot map, examined other witnesses, seized the weapon of offence and other incriminating materials, prepared seizure list, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for autopsy, received the Post -Mortem Examination Report, arrested the appellant, forwarded him to the court, sent the incriminating materials for Chemical Examination and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. The defence plea is one of complete denial.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to prove charge examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer and exhibited 16 documents. In the examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all questions. The defence examined one witness and exhibited none. On completion of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh convicted the present appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. basing upon ocular witnesses, i.e., P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 (child witness).

(3.) MISS Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment on the following grounds;