GANGADHAR @ MITUKU MAHANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of two appellants, namely, appellant No.1 Gangadhar alias Mituku Mahanta and his wife being appellant No. 2 Kainfula Mahanta is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting appellant No.1 under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to R.I. for five years and further convicting appellant No.2 under Section 304, Part II/114, IPC and sentencing her thereunder to undergo R.I. for two years. The impugned judgment was passed in connection with S.T. Case No. 71 of 1987.

(2.) AFTER the charge sheet was filed, charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against appellant No.1 and another charge under Section 302/114, IPC was framed against appellant No.2 to which they pleaded not guilty.

(3.) ON 7.7.1987 at or about 7 P.M. P.W.1 Tarinisen Mahanta lodged an oral information at Champua Police Station alleging basic facts of the case and the said oral information was reduced into writing by the Officer in Charge of the said police station and an FIR on that basis was registered under Sections 341/326/379, IPC. However, after about 24 hours the deceased succumbed to his injuries and accordingly Section 302, IPC was added to this case and the Police took up usual investigation. P.W.1 Tarinisen Mahanta happened to be the son of the deceased. In his evidence P.W.1 stated that the occurrence took place on 7.7.1987 and his father succumbed to the injuries on 8.7.1987. In their old backyard they had sown Biri crop. On that day they were putting up a fence for closing a portion of the land on which the deceased and P.W.1 had sown Biri. On that very day in the afternoon the deceased had cut some jhatas (twigs) and brought them for the purpose of putting up a fence around a portion of the land in which they had sown Biri. Along with them his sister P.W.5 Sakuntala Mahanta was also there.