ANU BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard argument and judgment is as follows:

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, Manas Naik (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), purchased a piece of land from the accused and constructed a house thereon and started living at Angul Town. The deceased wanted to put a compound wall but a tree standing on the border was creating obstruction. The deceased called the son of the accused and the later permitted the deceased to cut the standing tree and stated that he had obtained instruction from his father (accused). The deceased employed labourers to cut down the tree. After that the accused arrived and scolded the deceased for cutting the tree in his absence, though the deceased explained to him about the permission granted by the son of the accused but the accused was not satisfied with such explanation. He also scolded his son. The accused also wanted intervention of the gentlemen to intervene but he could not get their service. The accused being mentally disturbed in the evening hours when the deceased was returning from the market, attacked and assaulted him by means of lathi and dealt blows on his head and other parts of the body. On receiving the blow on head the deceased fell down. He was taken to Angul hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctors. Part of assault was seen by P.W. 1, i.e. widow of the deceased. She was informed about this occurrence by some children playing on the street but none of them have been examined as witness to occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, accused stood charge for the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined eight witnesses. Besides, P.W. 1 the other most relevant witness, P.W. 4 is the doctor, Sudhansu Shekar Suttar who proved postmortem report Ext. 4 so also the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8, who in course of investigation seized the Bamboo lathi, M.O.I, besides wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased.

(3.) On assessment of such evidence, Learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal recorded the findings that prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased suffered homicidal death and that the accused is the author of the injury. In that respect, he relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4, seizure of weapon of offence and report from the serologist containing human -blood of same group from the wearing apparels of the accused and the deceased. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Sec. -302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment of life.