STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUJAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No. 64/21 of 1987.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on 10.12.1986 there was a quarrel between Jhala Naik (PW -8) and the wife of the accused Birasa. In that quarrel Etwari Naik (PW -7) was separated from the clutches of the wife of the accused. At about 6.30 PM while the informant Etwa Nayak (PW 6) and his wife Jhala Nayak (PW -8) were in front of their Jhumpudi (house) the accused arrived there. He had put a Chadar covering his hands. He pulled out his hands and then he was seen that he was armed with knife. He declared to do away with the persons who manhandled his wife. With that declaration he dealt knife blows to PW -6 the informant, who sustained injuries on his elbow and also in the process of avoiding one of the blows that hit and injured the belly of two and a half years old child, who was then in his arms. PW -6 was compelled to put that injured child on the ground and fight with the accused. The other local residents also came to the spot of occurrence and seeing them the accused fled away. PW -6 and his injured child (the deceased) were brought to Ispat General Hospital and on 19.12.1986 the child succumbed to injuries while being continuing as an indoor patient in the hospital. Therefore, the case which the police have initially registered for the offence under Section 307/324 of I.P.C. was investigated as a case of murder and charge sheet was submitted accordingly. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, it was taken up for trial by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge for the offence under Section 302/324 of I.P.C. and claimed for trial. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and relied on the documents, vide Exts. 1 to 20. Defence did not adduce any evidence. The weapon of offence was marked as M. Os. -II and some of the wearing apparels were marked as M. Os. -II to VI. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, beside the informant/injured PW -6, his wife PW -8, aunt -in -law PW -7, daughter of PW -7 being examined as PW -9 and PW -12, a neighbour were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.

(3.) IT is noted here that the above quoted factual finding of the Trial Court regarding homicidal death of the child is not being challenged. On perusal of the relevant evidence, we also endorse corrections to the aforesaid finding. Therefore, a further deliberation on the aforesaid aspect is not necessary.