MADHUSUDAN DISARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present Jail Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of conviction dated 17.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in Criminal Trial No. 48 of 2002 under Section 302, IPC and consequent sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.1.2002 at about 4.30 P.M., the villagers of village Desonalkguda were celebrating "Puso Pandu Jatra" near the mango grove. Suddenly at that time, P.W. 1 came running to her husband, P.W. 4 (son of the deceased) and informed him that his mother was murdered by the appellant by an axe blow. Hearing this, the informant (P.W. 4) immediately rushed to his house along with others and found the dead body of his mother lying at the spot with bleeding injuries on her back and near that spot one axe (M.O.I), one cap and one slipper were also lying. Thereafter, P.W. 4 along with other villagers searched for the appellant but could not trace him out. Consequently, P.W. 4 lodged the F.I.R. before Sadar Police Station, Koraput after the same was scribed and read over to him. Basing upon the said written report, the police registered the case under Section 302, IPC, investigated the matter and on completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. The defence plea is one of complete denial.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to prove charge examined as many as six witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and exhibited 10 documents. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 3 is a post -occurrence witness and a co -villager, P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased and informant, P.W. 5 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy and P.W. 6 is the I.O. The defence examined none. On completion of trial, the Sessions Judge, Koraput convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC basing upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence and also upon the extra -judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W. 3. The appellant also admitted his guilt in the accused statement.

(3.) MR . B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the eye -witnesses and they corroborate one another with regard to the core prosecution story. Merely because they are relatives of the deceased, their clear version with regard to assault can not be disbelieved. P.W. 3 is another co -villager before whom the appellant confessed his guilt and in addition to this, the appellant admitted the facts under Section 313, Cr.P. that due to previous enmity, he assaulted the deceased. Therefore, Mr. Prdhan contends that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 302, IPC and in any way, this case is not coming under the purview of Section 304, IPC as the same is not covered by any of the exceptions to Section 300, IPC.