LAWS(ORI)-2014-7-64

DUKHABANDHU NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On July 31, 2014
Dukhabandhu Naik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is fried challenging the judgment and order dated 24.4.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 161/36 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months more.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 27.10.1989, at about 10.30 A.M. allegedly the accused dealt a blow by a crow bar on the head of the deceased Patau Behera of village - Kalla under Barkot Police Station. The accused dealt the fatal blow by the crow bar on the deceased at the entrance way to his house. The further case of the prosecution is that while the accused was putting fence by the side of the road encroaching the passage to the house of the deceased, the deceased protested and called the villagers to the spot, but in spite of this, the accused paid deaf ears and continued to put the fence obstructing the passage leading to the house of the deceased. When the deceased out of anger challenged the accused for the overt acts committed by him and starting up -rooting the 'Merha' (fence), the accused dealt a blow by means of a crow bar on the head of the deceased causing profuse bleeding injuries and after the deceased was mortally wounded, he fell unconscious at the spot. Thereafter, the informant, who is the nephew of the deceased, took the deceased to Deogarh Hospital. Despite giving some preliminary treatment at Deogarh Hospital, since the condition of the deceased was deteriorated, the deceased was referred to the Burla Medical College for better treatment and ultimately on 26.12.1989, the injured succumbed to the injuries after protracted treatment.

(3.) THE plea of the appellant is of complete denial to the charges levelled against him. The further plea of the appellant is that the case is palpably false and due to previous enmity with the deceased and the witnesses, he has been falsely implicated in the case.