KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was one of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No 466/46 of 1998 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur He faced the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, I P C on the allegation that on 06 05 1997 at about 12 30 p m (it should be a m ) in the night at Haladharpur in furtherance of their common intention appellant and two others committed murder of one Dushasan Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by dealing 'Khanda'and 'Bhujah' blows The co-accused persons were Bajia alias Byay Kumar Mishra and Sudam Charan Sahu To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts 1 to 7 No material object was exhibited on behalf of the prosecution The accused persons, in a common defence, took the plea of complete denial and examined one witness namely Ghana- shyam Sahu as D W No 1 to prove that because of his antecedent as a dacoit the deceased suffered injuries and death by some unknown persons

(2.) On assessment of the evidence and no dispute from the defence about existence of such injuries as per the evidence of P W No 7, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report-Ext 4, trial Court concluded that deceased suffered a homicidal death It appears from the evidence of P W No 7 that he found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased

(3.) On assessment of evidence, trial Court found P W 5, the widow of the deceased and an injured in that occurrence as per the injury report-Ext 7, was the solitary eye-witness to the occurrence relating to the homicidal death of the deceased On assessment of her evidence trial Court recorded finding that her evidence suffers from exaggeration and improbability relating to the participation in the crime by the co-accused Bajia alias Bijoy. He also found that in her deposition P.W.5 eliminated presence of accused Sudam at the scene of occurrence. He further recorded a finding that evidence of P.W.4 (son of the deceased) is not acceptable that the said two acquitted accused persons ran away from the spot. Accordingly trial Court held that applying the principle of elimination of unacceptable evidence, P.W.5 is acceptable only with respect to dealing sword blows by the appellant. Accordingly he held the appellant as the author of the injuries and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. For the said conviction he sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life.