NARAYAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 1996.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, on 31st December, 1995 at about 4.00 p.m. Kamadeb, the deceased, appeared at the betel shop of Bharat Samantra, (PW1) and placed order for a betel. At that time, accused arrived there being armed with a Kati (MO1) and dealt a blow on the backside of the deceased. After sustaining that blow when the deceased fell down, accused dealt random blows by Kati on different parts of the body and left the place. Because of that assault deceased suffered bleeding injuries and succumbed. The matter was intimated to the local police and investigation was undertaken in ritual manner. In course of investigation, the O.I.C. not only received the written F.I.R. Ext. 9 but also held inquest over the dead body, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, arrested the accused, seized the weapon of offence and sent the accused to the Court of J.M.F.C., Digapahandi to record confessional statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the accused faced trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the charge under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 13 prosecution witnesses, documents marked as Exts. 1 to 10 and the weapon of offence marked MO1. Amongst such evidence, evidence of PW1 is that of solitary eyewitness to the occurrence. PW3 is the doctor (Professor of F.M.T. Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur), who conducted post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report, Ext. 2 and his opinion report Ext. 3, on examining the weapon of offence (MOD. PW13 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused marked Ext. 10.