PARI ALIAS PARIA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Pari @ Paria Nayak faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No.118 of 2006 for commission of offence punishable under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter "I.P.C.") on the accusation that he committed murder of his mother Sankhi Nayak (hereafter "the deceased") in the afternoon on 15/4/2006.

(2.) P.W.1 Trinath Naik, the maternal uncle of the appellant lodged the F.I.R. before the Inspector-in-Charge of Khurda Police Station on 15/4/2006 stating therein that the deceased was his sister and the appellant was the son of the deceased. The deceased and the appellant were staying in village Guditangi constructing a thatched house in a government land since three years prior to the occurrence. Nine months prior to the occurrence, the appellant got married but within ten days of marriage, his wife left the matrimonial home and went to her father's place as he subjected his wife to physical cruelty. Since that day, the appellant became more aggressive and most of the time, he used to quarrel with the deceased and was also assaulting her and threatening her with dire consequences. The informant on many a occasion compromised the dispute between the deceased and the appellant. On the previous night of the occurrence, the appellant so also the deceased had gone to watch the opera show which was organized in the village on the eve of Pana Sankrati and returned home. On the day of occurrence, a quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant assaulted to the deceased. After coming to know about the same, the informant came to the house of the appellant and tried to subside the matter. At about 5.00 p.m., while the informant was proceeding to purchase the vegetables, he found that the cattle were pulling straws from the thatch of the deceased. He drove the cattle away and entered inside the house and found the deceased was lying dead with bleeding injury and a sickle was lying at that place and there was cut injury on the neck of the deceased and the appellant was not found in the house. P.W.1 suspected that in connection with providing food to the appellant, there was dispute between the mother and the son and the appellant cut the neck of the deceased by a sickle out of anger and thereafter absconded. The informant also ascertained from the co-villagers that they heard the shout of the appellant with the deceased in the afternoon.

(3.) After submission of chargesheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant as aforesaid. Since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish his guilt. Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects: