LAXMAN MURMU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Jail Criminal Appeal is against the order of conviction of the appellant under Sections 449, 302 and 506, Part -II, IPC as per the impugned Judgment dated 9.1.1996 of the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj,, Baripada, camp at Karanjia.

(2.) DECEASED Pana Murmu is the step -mother of the accused -appellant. In support of the allegation of matricide, prosecution stated that the accused stayed with his elder father (father's elder brother) and succeeded to his estate, but he was still greedy about a share from the landed property of his father Madan Murmu (P.W. 2) and in that respect he was in the habit of picking up quarrel with deceased and P.W. No. 2. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 25.10.1993 at about evening time he was rebuked by the deceased for catching fish by draining water from the paddy land of P.W. 2. The occurrence of matricide however took place around 8 p.m. in the night. Accused came and caused a incised wound by an arrow on the right side chest and while he was in the process of pressing it deeper by pressing deceased against the door of the house, on hearing her shout for help, a neighbour named Jitaram Marandi (P.W. 1) arrived at the spot, separated the accused from the deceased and in that process the arrow in the hands of the accused also came out from the chest. P.W. 1 pushed the accused outside the house, for which the later fell down. Then Bada Arjuna Marandi (P.W. 3), another neighbour reached at the spot and wanted to detain the accused. There was a scuffle between him and the accused, and the accused could succeed to escape and flee from the spot of occurrence. At the time of such decamping he also threatened P.Ws. 1 and 3 with dire consequences for their intervention in the above manner. The deceased after being relieved from the clutches of the accused, came out from the room; some water was administered to her, but she succumbed to the injury. The local police was intimated and that followed with a routine investigation. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted.

(3.) TO substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined seven witnesses (particulars of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is already noted above). P.W. 5 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.Ws. 6 and 7 are two police officers participating in the investigation and P.W. 4 is a witness to the seizure of incriminating articles including blood stained earth, wearing apparels, etc. Exts. 1 to 13 are the documents relied on by the prosecution. Out of that, Ext. 1 is the FIR, Ext. 2 the Inquest Report, Ext. 10 the Postmortem Report, Ext. 10/3 the Opinion Report of P.W. 5 on the weapon of offence and Exts. 11 and 12 the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, The weapon of offence, the bow and arrow and the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased were marked M.Os. I to VIII.