MADAN MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Addl Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No. 15/4 of 2000 convicting the accused -appellant for the offences under Sections 304 Part -II and 324 of I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo RI for ten years and one year respectively is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) IT is alleged to be a case of patricide. The accused appellant is the son of deceased Michhu Majhi through his first wife. P.W.8 is the third wife of the deceased. P.W.4 is the daughter of the accused -appellant. After the deceased married P.W.8, the accused appellant got himself separated from his father and lived in a separate house. P.W.4, the grand daughter of the deceased and her husband lived with the deceased and P.W.8 in one house. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.6.1999 at about 8.00 P.M. deceased asked P.W.4 to serve him supper, but as she did not do it the deceased called for the accused -appellant and complained against P.W.4. In the process a hitch ensued between the accused -appellant and the deceased. Being enraged the accused -appellant brought out a BUDIA (axe) and inflicted a blow with it on his head, above the left ear, causing bleeding injury. When P.W.8 protested, the accused -appellant inflicted a BUDIA blow on her forehead, above the eye lid and throwing the BUDIA in the cow shed left for his house with P.W.4. On 18.6.1999 at 8.00 A.M., P.W.5 lodged a written report before the A.S.I. of Bagdihi Outpost (P.W.12) in this regard. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, P.W.12 forwarded the F.I.R. to the O.I.C. of Laikera Police Station (P.W.9) and took up investigation. On receipt of the F.I.R. P.W.9 registered a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. and directed P.W.12 to investigate. Accordingly he investigated it. In course of investigation he visited the spot on 18.6.1999, made arrangement for sending injured Michhu Majhi to District Headquarters Hospital, Jharsuguda, examined the witnesses and seized some Material Objects and since the injured died while being carried to hospital, held inquest over the dead body, sent it to the morgue for autopsy and on the same day (18.6.1999) made over charge of the investigation to S.I. Bhaskar Chandra Prusty of Laikera Police Station (P.W.11) who re -examined the witnesses, examined some more witnesses, seized the inner garment of the deceased on production by the Constable who had escorted the dead body for autopsy, searched for the accused -appellant, but could not trace him out and on his transfer made over charge of investigation to P.W.9, the O.I.C of Laikera Police Station. P.W.9 sent some of the Material Objects through the S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda to Deputy Director, R.F.S.L., Ainthapalli for chemical examination. He also sent injured Nila Majhiani (P.W.8) to the hospital for medial examination, searched for the accused -appellant, but could not trace him out and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case, submitted Charge Sheet against the accused -appellant for the offence under Sections 302/307 of I.P.C. showing him absconder.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses as against none by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused -appellant to have inflicted an axe blow on the deceased in a fit of anger, in course of a quarrel and accordingly held him guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part -II of I.P.C. and acquitted him of the charge for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Similarly the trial Court found the accused appellant to have dealt an axe blow near the eye of P.W.8, but since the injury found on P.W.8 was simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body and basing on the evidence of P.W.8 herself that when she came to the rescue of the deceased, the accused -appellant gave the BUDIA blow on her, the trial Court held that the accused -appellant had no intention to cause death of P.W.8 and as such, while acquitting him of the charge under Section 307, found him guilty under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused -appellant preferred the present appeal, while in jail.