HRUSHI ALIAS SUKDEV PATRA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the 22nd February, 1964 which was a Saturday, there was a brawl at about 4 p.m. in the liquor shop of one, Balai Majhi (p.w.3) in village Dhobadiha, Police Station Chamakpur. In that brawl the persons who were said to have taken part were, on one side, the Appellant Hrushi, his son Maheswar (p.w.1) and cousin Sanatan ; and on the other the deceased Sudarsan Dibar. They all then resided in the same village Dhanurjoypur and were, while in the Liquor shop dead drunk. The claim of p.w.3 is that in the course of that brawl he saw Hrushi chasing Sudarsan with a lathi in his hand which he, and one Kalakar Naik (p.w.4) who was also at that time present at the shop taking liquor snatched from him. At this Hrushi took a knife from the pocket of Sanatan and raised it towards Sudarsan. Seeing that p.w.3 caught hold of the wrist of Hrushi and prevented him from dealing any blow therewith. Thereafter, Sudarsan ran towards the jungle. The other three also immediately followed him. Thus, so far as the liquor shop was concerned the matter ended there.

(2.) THAT evening however Sudarsan did not reach his house. Therefore, on the day following there was a search made for him by his elder brother Daria Dibar (p.w.5). In the course of that search he is said to have found his dead body lying at a place in between his village and the liquor shop -at a distance of about a mile from the latter. His evidence is that from there he first went to the liquor shop where he came to know from p.w.3 about the incident of the previous evening and then to Bamunibahal police outpost, where, on his statement, the first information was recorded on that very day (23 -2 -1964) by the A.S.I. (p. w, 10). The A.S.I. having done that got out for the place of occurrence and reached there at 8 p.m. on that every day. There he first took the statements of Balia Majhi (p.w.3), Rukmini Dei (p.w.2) sister of Appellant Hrushi, and Maheswar (p.w.1) and then seized a knife (M.O.I) which was produced before him by Maheswar. On the next day (24 -2 -1964) he made the inquest over the dead body and thereafter post mortem was held on 25 -2 -1964 by the Assistant Surgeon (p.w.9). The doctor according to his evidence in the committing Court found the following injuries

(3.) IN regard to Sanatan the learned Sessions Judge found that the circumstantial evidence appearing against him does not conclusively establish his guilt.