KANDRA ALIAS BUDHRAM SUNAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by accused Kandra @ Budhram Sunar and Karmu Sunar challenging to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela on 23.01.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 110/43 of 1995.

(2.) AS it reveals on record, prosecution case is that the deceased -Jiten Sunar, daughter of P.W. 1 -Jamuna Sahoo, was suspected to be practicing witchcraft. It is alleged that on 3rd July, 1994 at about noon time when the deceased together with her mother (P.W. 1) and aunt (P.W. 2) were returning to home from the field, on the village road near the house of accused -Kandra, she was obstructed and detained by accused -Karmu, Accused -Kandra, who was also present there, brought out a bhujali concealed on his backside and dealt a blow to the belly of the deceased. On sustaining that blow when the deceased fell down with bleeding injury, accused -Kandra dealt 2 to 3 successive blows on her and because of such injuries inflicted, the deceased died at the spot. It was alleged in the FIR that in the process of assault on the deceased by accused -Kandra, the other accused, Karmu shared the common intention by holding the hands of the deceased. The informant, the deceased and the accused persons are rustic adivasis. Three other accused persons also faced the trial together with the appellants and they were charged with the offence under Section 302/109, IPC. In course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2, as the witnesses to the occurrence and P.W. 7, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, and proved the post mortem report (Ext. 5) and the opinion report (Ext. 6). It also examined other witnesses relating to seizure of the incriminating materials, inquest and other aspect of investigation. The weapon of offence was marked M.O.I.

(3.) MISS Bijaylaxmi Tripathy, learned Counsel for the appellants, argues before us that contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1 together with the conduct of P. W.2 in resiling from her earlier version is sufficient to entertain doubt on the veracity of P.W. 1 and that situation should go in favour of the accused persons. In reply, Mr. Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and clinching so as to fasten the accusation against accused Kandra and under such circumstance he cannot escape the order of conviction.