MITU @ DEBARAJ JENA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant from inside the jail has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 16 of 2013. By the said judgment, the appellant has been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 304-II of IPC which has been followed by the order directing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 22.05.2012 during noon hours, Debendra Behera (deceased) who was then serving as Driver in a truck had gone to the village Gopalpur carrying the truck loaded with stones as directed by Prasanta Kumar Prusty of village Tentulia, Banki (P.W. 2). When the truck reached the village, the deceased parked the truck at a place for unloading of the stones. It is stated that at that time, the appellant suddenly arrived there, abused the deceased and all of a sudden assaulted him by means of a wooden plank causing bleeding injuries on his right hand. The labourers of the truck though intervened in preventing the appellant from dealing further blows upon the deceased. The appellant ultimately succeeded in dealing another blow with force on the head of the deceased resulting his fall by sustaining injuries which made him unconscious. The further case of the prosecution is that after the incident, the appellant fled away from the sport and the deceased was shifted to Athagarh hospital where he was declared dead.

(3.) Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence first of all has rightly has held that the death of the deceased Debendra Behera was homicidal in nature resulting from out of injuries inflicted on him as deposed to by the doctor, P.W. 10 who had conducted post-mortem examination and noticed the lacerated injuries on the right side of the forehead, just above his right eyebrow, contusion on the right side cheek, just below the right eye; lacerated injury on the posterior aspect of the scalp and swelling on linear thenar eminence of right palm on the base on right thumb. Above conclusion is not challenged in the present appeal.