RAJU @ RAJ KISHORE NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302 & 323, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 323, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.78 of 1998, has preferred this appeal from jail.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 1.2.1998 at 7.00 P.M. P.W.1, Narottam Naik was taking food in his house. The deceased -Duti Naik, aunt of P.W.1 was feeding the younger sister of P.W.1. A lantern was burning in the room. All of a sudden, the convict appellant appeared there armed with a char -poy leg (a heavy wooden stick) and assaulted the deceased Duti Naik on her head with that char poy leg. The deceased - Duti Naik sustained bleeding injury and fell down on the ground. When P.W.1 stood up, the convict appellant dealt a blow on his head. He also suffered bleeding injuries. Hearing the shout of P.W.2, P.W.3 and others came to the spot and ultimately P.W.1 and the deceased -Duti Naik were shifted to the hospital. The Doctor, P.W.4 attended the injured persons and according to him, Duti Naik was admitted to the hospital in a state of unconsciousness. On the next morning, i.e., 2.2.1998, Duti Naik died while undergoing treatment. After receiving the injured persons in the hospital, Dr. Karunakar Behera, P.W.4 sent medico -legal report to the police. The said report was treated as FIR vide Ext.2. P.W.7, the then OIC of Champua Police Station took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.7 examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, seized wearing apparels of the deceased Duti Naik and accused, weapon of offence and other incriminating materials. On death of Duti Naik, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination by P.W.5. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC. The plea of the appellant is one of complete denial.

(3.) MR . A.N. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has gone wrong in terming P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eye - witnesses. According to him their evidences would show that they are not the eye -witnesses with regard to murder of the deceased. Secondly, he submitted that so far as murder of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive on the part of the appellant. Thirdly, he submitted that the name of the appellant was never disclosed before the Medical Officer (P.W.4) who attended the injured P.W.1 and injured, Duti Naik, who died later. Fourthly, he submitted that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased as he had given only one blow on the deceased. Therefore, his culpability cannot be fastened under Section 302, IPC. Lastly, he submits that the appellant has been in jail since 1998.