BUDHIA TARASIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD argument and the judgment is as follows:

(2.) ACCUSED Budhia and deceased Khalli admittedly related to each other as uncle and nephew. According to the case of the prosecution, the dispute between the accused and the deceased relates to a family partition about 20 years back and therefore, they were not tolerating each other. The occurrence took place in the night of 15/16.7.2000. A few days before that accused suffered from diarrhea and the family members in the house of the deceased undertook the treatment in the hospital. It is alleged that accused was carrying the belief that the deceased had applied sorcery to cause harm to him (the accused). According to the further case of the prosecution, accused was sleeping on the outer verandah of one Jagannath Behera and the deceased was sleeping on the outer verandah of his house and the informant, P.W.1, who is also the brother of the deceased was sleeping on the outer verandah of his house. The aforesaid place of sleep of the accused, deceased and P.W.1 are nearer to each other. At about 1.00 A.M. in the night on hearing the groaning sound, P.W.1 saw that the deceased was running away holding his neck and after going to certain distance, he fell down and at the time accused was chasing him holding a knife but like P.W.1 when the other witnesses, such as P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 saw the accused standing with a knife near the spot where the deceased was lying. A trekker was arranged to shift the deceased but by the time the Trekker came, the deceased had succumbed to the injury and therefore F.I.R., Ext.1 was lodged in Jarada Police Station and on the basis of that information" investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Charge was framed under Section 302, I.P.C. and accused denied to the charge and claimed for trial.

(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, recorded finding that the deceased suffered homicidal death. From the evidence of the aforesaid P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, he held that prosecution has proved that accused is the author of the injury. He rejected the argument of the accused to grant him benefit of doubt by rendering the aforesaid witnesses about the assault because none of them had seen the fact of actual stabbing. For is conviction under Section 302, I.P.C., learned Sessions Judge imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.