PRANABANDHU SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul, convicting him under Section 304, Part -II, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years in S.T. Case No.95 -A of 1997/91 of 1998.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.1997 at about 4.30 P.M. at village Ugi, Tentulinali Sahi, the accused -appellant dealt a knife blow on the belly of the deceased. On receiving the blow, the victim fell down on the ground. While being shifted to the hospital, on the way he succumbed to the injury. It is alleged that about 15 days prior to the incident, the wife of the accused -appellant had taken shelter in the house of the deceased, as the appellant had assaulted her. Due to this, the appellant had threatened to murder the deceased. On the date of occurrence at about 12.30 P.M., when the deceased was absent from his house, the appellant abused him. On returning home at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased heard it from his wife. At about 4.30 P.M., he saw the appellant going on a cycle and questioned him about his conduct. At this, the appellant threw the cycle on the deceased, brought out a knife from his waist and dealt a blow by the same, which struck the belly of the deceased. The informant, who is the wife of the deceased, and the victim tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he fled away. Thereafter, due to the stab injury, the victim fell down on the ground. While shifting him to hospital, he expired on the way. The matter was reported to police, who took up investigation and on completion of the same submitted charge -sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused -appellant. It may be mentioned here that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, convicted him under Section 304, Part -II, IPC.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.3 is the informant and the wife of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the elder brothers and P.W.5 is the son of the deceased. P.Ws.6 and 7 are co -villagers of the deceased. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy. P.W.1 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body to the hospital, and P.W.9 is the investigating officer.