DUARI ALIAS SATRUGHANA BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred from the prison by the convict Duari @ Satrughana Barik, the judgment dated 29.2.1996 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T. No. 9/344 of 1994 has been challenged. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) ON an oral information given by P.W.8, Parati Kumbhar, the same was reduced into writing by the Officer -in -charge, Balianta P.S. at the spot of occurrence and was treated as FIR. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC against the appellant. After usual investigation, charge -sheet was submitted. The accused was apprehended, charge -sheet submitted and in due course after commitment of the case and framing of charge, the case was tried being S.T. No. 9/344 of 1994. The prosecution case is that the appellant, Duari @ Satrughana Barik, the deceased -Rudra Kumbhar and many other persons from a village under the jurisdiction of Patnagarh P.S. in the district of Bolangir were engaged by the owner of M/s. Sai Brick Factory situated at Balianta under the jurisdiction of Balianta P.S. in the district of Khurda, as labourers. They were residing within the premises of the brick kiln in shades/Jhumpudi houses constructed by the owner of the brick kiln for accommodating the labourers. There was some quarrel between the deceased and the appellant few days prior to the occurrence which arose due to the younger son of the accused throwing a piece of broken brick towards the younger son of the deceased who was about two years old. The further case of the prosecution is that on 10.5.1994 at about 8.00 P.M., P.W.8, the wife of the deceased alongwith her children slept inside the house provided to them. The said house had no doors. As it was summer season, the deceased slept outside the house near the entrance. At about 1.00 A.M. on hearing a sound, the wife of the deceased, P.W.8 woke up and saw the appellant giving a Fouda (spade) blow on the neck of her husband. Seeing this, she raised hulla. Her eldest daughter and other children woke up and at that point of time, the appellant throwing the spade at the spot fled away on the place of occurrence. It is the further case of the prosecution that though P.W.8 chased the appellant but the appellant managed to escape. Hearing the shout of P.W.8, the watchman and other workers of the factory came to the spot to whom she narrated the incident. The deceased sustained severe injuries on his neck to which he succumbed. P.W.1, Debendra Kumar Sahu who was one of the partners of M/s. Sai Brick Factory and managing the brick kiln, was informed about the incident immediately and he also came to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying there having sustained bleeding injuries on his neck. P.W. 1 then rushed to Balianta Police Station and informed the police regarding the incident. The police immediately came to the spot where P.W.8, the wife of the deceased orally reported about the occurrence which was reduced into writing and treated as FIR. The Investigating Officer seized the Fouda (spade), which was alleged to be the weapon of offence and also seized blood stained earth and sample earth. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 persons. No witnesses have been examined from the side of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was one of complete denial of the allegations.

(3.) IN the opinion of P.W.10, cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock, the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the same were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The informant who is the wife of the deceased and examined as P.W.8 is the only eye -witness to the occurrence. In her Examination -in -Chief, she stated that both her husband and the accused were working in the brick kiln. The accused caused injuries on the person of her husband by means of a Fouda. She further stated that when she protested the accused threatened to assault her with Fouda and she raised hullah. On hearing the same, the watchman came to the spot and the accused fled away, leaving the Fouda at the spot. The watchman informed this fact to P.W.1 who is one of the partners of the said brick kiln. P.W.1 informed the police and the police came to the spot before whom she orally reported about the incident which was reduced into writing by the police, explained to her and thereafter she put her thumb impression. During cross -examination, this witness has stated that all the employees were provided with Fouda (spade) by the factory. One Fouda was given to her husband and the Fouda supplied to her husband was seized by the police during investigation of the case. She further stated that she saw the accused when he dealt the Fouda blow on the person of her husband.