BAIDYANATH NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was convinced by learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 112 of 1994 and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. Appellant has challenged that order of conviction from the jail and that is how the appeal has been registered as a Jail Criminal Appeal.

(2.) SAMAL Naik (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') suffered a homicidal death because of some ante mortem injuries which he sustained at about 7 p.m. on 03.12.1993. Hari Nayak (P.W.5) is the father of the said deceased. He was the informant in the case. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased, a bachelor, was living separately from his father and three brothers, but taking his food in the joint family. He was having some relationship with Sabita Naik @ Jhari (P.W.2). The said P.W.2 is the daughter of the accused. The proposal for marriage of the deceased with P.W.2 given by P.W.5 was turned down by the accused. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence at about 7 p.m., the deceased proceeded towards the house of the accused to make contact with P.W.2 and there he was attacked and assaulted by the accused. On being so assaulted, he shouted stating 'MAI GO MAI GO MARI GALI, BAIDA MATE HANI PAKAILA'. Soon thereafter P.W.5 as well as his sons and the people in the neighbourhood gathered at the spot where the deceased was lying. Accused was not found present in his house. Wife of the accused (P.W. 1) and daughter of the accused (P.W.2) also stated that accused killed the deceased. The matter was reported in the police station and law was set into motion. After a routine investigation, charge sheet was submitted. The list of witnesses included eye -witnesses to the occurrence (P.Ws. 1 and 2). Circumstances against the accused are his leading to discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., axe (M.O.I.), presence of human blood of the same group as of the deceased on M.O.I, as well as the wearing apparels of the deceased (Lungi M.O.II.), the motive of the accused to commit the crime and the spot being in front of the house of the accused.

(3.) TRIAL Court recorded the finding that though the eyewitnesses to the occurrence (P.Ws. 1 and 2) did not support the prosecution, but the circumstantial evidence, such as, recovery of the weapon of offence and statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the deceased had gone to their house and then accused was present are sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to warrant a conviction.