BALARAM PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal from jail, Balaram Panda (hereinafter referred to an 'accused') has questioned correctness of his conviction for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304, Part II, 323, 325 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short. IPC) and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one year and two years respectively as awarded for first three offences which were directed to run consecutively. Though accused was convicted under Section 201, IPC no separate sentence was imposed.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS of prosecution in short are that on 30.3.1991 accused caused death of Siba Munda (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), and intended to cause death of Benga Munda (P.W.4). As unfolded during trial, prosecution version is that on fateful day, deceased and his wife Benga Munda (P.W.4) went with cash of Rs. 5/ - to take liquor, accompanied by accused who was their Samudhi. They did not return home till evening. So their daughter' Bhodei Munda having suspected some foul play went in search of their parents, and found her mother in an injured stage lying inside water. She was brought out and when Bhodei asked her mother as to how she sustained injuries, she stated that accused assaulted her husband by means of stone causing bleeding injuries, and when she tried to rescue him, accused assaulted her. After she became senseless on account of assaults, accused threw the dead body of deceased in the water, and also threw her to water. On learning these facts, Bhodei came running and described the matter to her brother Gobinda Munda (P.W.2) who along with his friend went to the spot, brought the injured Benga home and thereafter shifted her, hospital. Information was lodged by Gobinda Munda before the Officer -in -charge, Mahulpada P.S. and investigation was undertaken, Charge -sheet was submitted and trial was held.

(3.) MR . C.S. Namtoar, learned counsel for accused submitted that on the basis of P.W.4's evidence, conviction should not have been rendered. Additionally, it is submitted that in respect of different injuries,, different convictions could not have been made. In any event directions for consecutive running of sentence is uncalled for. Learned counsel for State supported the Judgment.