NIRAKAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-2-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in Sessions Trial No. 5-0 of 1989. Accused appellant Nirakar was booked under Section 302, IPC and his father accused Nimai under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of the charge, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. His father, accused Nimai, was however, found not guilty of the charge and was acquitted. In this appeal, the accused-appellant has challenged the order of his conviction and sentence.

(2.) Briefly stated, the story of the prosecution, as disclosed in the First Information Report as well as the evidence on record, is that on 13-10-1988, the cattle of the accused persons damaged the paddy crop- of the deceased Nirakar Pradhan. Therefore, the deceased went to the house of the accused persons and demanded compensation. There was a tussle between the parties in the house of the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused-appellant Nirakar, instigated by his father accused Nimai, brought out a gun from inside their house and shot at the deceased causing bullet injuries on the left side of his chest. It is also alleged that accused-appellant Nirakar with the butt of the gun hit the wife of the deceased, namely Balabati Pradhan (P.W. 3), who had accompanied the deceased to the house of the accused persons. On hearing the sound of gunfire informant Bisei Pradhan (P.W. 5), the brother of the deceased, went to the place of occurrence where P.W. 3 informed him about the incident. Therefore P.W. 5 reported the matter to the Officer- in-charge of Talcher Police Station. During investigation, police arrested accused-appellant Nirakar on 14-8-1988. According to the prosecution case, the appellant, while in police custody, led the police to the recovery of the gun from the backside of the house of P.W. 10. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted.

(3.) The accused persons, pleaded not guilty. In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C., which have also been reported by the evidence of defence witnesses, they took the further plea that the deceased and the members of his family came to their house and demanded compensation for the damage caused to the paddy crop. There was a push and pull in course of which the gun fired accidentally causing the death of the deceased.