SUKRA KHILLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in C.T. No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant - Sukra Khilla guilty of the charge under Sec. 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years.

(2.) Prosecution case placed before the trial court is that on 06.01.2009 the appellant picked-up quarrel with his deceased father and when he protested, the appellant assaulted on his stomach by one split wood, as a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and died. Hearing hullah of the wife of the deceased, the informant came there, found the dead body of the deceased and thereafter lodged report at Govindapalli Police outpost, basing on which, a case was registered and investigation commenced and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sec. 302 of Penal Code was submitted against the present appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the learned trial court placing reliance on the case of the prosecution, framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 302 of IPC, but the appellant having not pleaded to guilt to the charge, trial was held, in course of which, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited some documents in supports of its case. On the other hand, the appellant did not examine any witness on his behalf. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court while acquitting the appellant from the offence under Sec. 302 of IPC, held him guilty under Sec. 304, Part-II of Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him thereunder, as stated earlier.

(3.) During course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the same is against the weight of evidence on record. It is contended that the evidence of the witnesses being full of material contradictions, the trial court ought not have accepted the same as worthy of credence more particularly when the weapon of offence was not produced before the trial court. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are indefensible.