STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NARAYAN BUDULA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr S.K. Nayak. learned Addl. Government Advocate, who is representing State of Odisha. None appears for the respondents. However, after hearing learned Addl. Government Advocate and perusing the records, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to hear learned counsel for the respondents and judgment can be passed outright.

(2.) The Government Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on 11.05.1999 in S. T. No. 95/55 of 1997-99 in which both the respondents stood charged for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code and have faced their trial. The case of the prosecution has been dealt with quite detail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. So this Court take into consideration the statements of witnesses as described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and it need not be reflected in this judgment to avoid repetition. The defence took the plea of simple denial.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the respondents, accused persons before the Trial Court, has examined ten witnesses. PW. 1 is stated to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, PW. 6 is a doctor, who has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW. 9 is the person, who has stated about the handing over of the deceased, who was heavily drunk and unable to walk, to the accused persons on the night of the occurrence. Besides such oral evidence, several documents like F.I.R., Post-mortem, Report, etc. and the evidence of five other prosecution witnesses have been taken into consideration.