LAWS(ORI)-2005-9-67

CHAMARA BIRUA Vs. STATE

Decided On September 02, 2005
Chamara Birua Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1996 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 100 of 1994 convicting the Appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as emerges from the FIR and the evidence on record, in brief is that informant is the nephew (Bhanaja) of both the deceased and the Appellant. On 15.11.1993 he along with both the maternal uncles (appellant and deceased) after preserving paddy in his house went to the house of Budhuram. In the evening, all of them took Handia and the Appellant went to his house. The deceased and the informant took their meals in the house of the informant and, thereafter, the informant carried some rice for his grand -mother residing in the house of the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased reside in the same room divided by a partition wall. On their arrival, they found the Appellant quarrelling with his wife. The deceased interfered at which the Appellant attempted to assault him by means of a stick. The informant snatched the stick and threw it away. Thereafter, while the deceased and the informant were returning from the house of the Appellant, the Appellant went inside his house, brought out a crow bar and dealt a severe blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down. Thereafter the Appellant also gave two more blows by the said crow bar. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant, investigation was conducted and ultimately charge sheet was filed.

(3.) IN order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 is the sole eye witness, P.W. 2 is the wife of the Appellant, who, though cited as an eye witness, did not support the case of the prosecution, P.W. 4 is a post -occurrence witness, P.W. 3 is a witness to the seizure and recovery of the crow bar (M.O. I), which the accused gave while in custody and P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer.