KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with having intentionally committed the murder of Muralidhar Misra (hereinafter referred to as the deceased on the 7th June, 1979 at village Damarpur in the district of Cut tack. The two coaccused persons, namely, Laxmi Dei alias Hara and Nirakar Sahu, the wife and son of the appellant respectively, stood charged under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with having caused hurt to the deceased and his brother Somanath Misra.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that earlier to the occurrence on that day, one bullock belonging to the deceased, while being brought from the threshing floor, hit the calf belonging to the appellant, for which the co-accused persons abused the deceased and assaulted him by dealing fist, blows and slaps. The deceased did not protest and came away. Get ting this information, his brother (P.W. 1) went and met the deceased at the threshing floor where the deceased described the incident in presence of some persons. At that time, the mother of the appellant abused P.W. 1 and when P.W. 1 protested, the appellant and his son assaulted him by dealing fist blows and slaps. Narayan Misra (P.W. 6), the father of P.W. 1 and the deceased, war informed about the incident. Some persons of the locality were called by them for a settlement with the appellant. After night fall, the deceased, his brother (P.W. 1) and their father along with some others went near the house of the appellant. The appellant was challenged and when he protested, the deceased insulted him in words. This infuriated the appellant who brought out a Tenta (M.O. 1) from inside the house and pierced it into the chest of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death.

(3.) To bring home the charges to the appellant and the co-accused persons, the prosecution had examined twelve witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 were witnesses to the occurrence. Of them, P.W. 4 did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the actual occurrence and was put leading questions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 6, coupled with that of the doctor (P.W. 8), that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by means of M.O. I, discarding the plea of the defence that the injury had been caused on the person of the deceased during, the course of a tussle accidentally and without relying on the evidence of the doctor examined on behalf of the defence to negative the theory of the prosecution. The two co-accused persons were acquitted of the charge.