NITYANANDA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Prafulla Rout.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows :Informant, P.W. 1 and his brother, Prafulla Rout, the deceased, had gone to Jatni on 22-4-91 from their village which is about six Kilometres away from Jatni. On their return, they were told by their father, P. W. 6 that Nityananda (Appellant No. 1) has thrown stone at their house and P.W. 6 being hit by a stone had sustained a bleeding injury. The informant and the deceased pecified their father and left for Jatni by moped at about 9.30 P.M. for the purpose of lodging a report.While they were passing through a mango tope, locally known as Gossintota situated at the out-shirts of the village somebody shouted "SALAKU HANA". The deceased stopped the moped, P. W. 1 focussed the torchlight and could identify the three appellants of whom appellant Nityananda was holding a Sword, Akhaya was holding a Farsa and Ajay was holding a Bhujali. Ajay gave a bhujali blow on the right side head of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and thereafter the three appellants gave out blows to the deceased. When the accused persons threatened to kill him, he ran away to his house shouting and calling others to come to the rescue of his brother. Reaching his house he found Jagabandlau Parida, P.W. 5, Purna Rout, P.W. 7 and a co-villager, Bati Nayak. He told them regarding the incident and all the four came on a motorcycle driven by P.W. 5. They found that the deceased was lying in a senseless condition. P.W 1 with the help of P.W. 7 removed the deceased on a motorcycle to Jatni hospital, where the doctor, P.W. 4, found the deceased was already dead and accordingly a report was sent to the police station. Subsequently, P.W. 1 want to the police station and reported the matter orally which was treated as the F.I.R.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34, IPC. Their plea was one of denial.

(3.) Prosecution examined nine witnesses, of whom P.W. 1 and 4 to 7 have already been introduced, Besides the said witnesses, P.W. 2 is a seizure witness, P.W. 3 is a pre-occurrence witness and had seen the appellants being variously armed just prior to the incident, P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer.