SANIA HANTAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Case No. 181 of 1997 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Koraput -Malkangiri -Nabarangpur -Rayagada at Jeypore, arising out of G.R. Case No. 145 of 1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, Learned Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on the charge that on 25.04.1997 at about noon time he inflicted arrow -shot injury to the deceased, viz. Guru Hantal and as a result of that the said deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26.04.1997.

(2.) In that respect, prosecution case is that Damu Hantal @ Sisa (P.W.3) is the son -in -law of the accused and that the deceased is the brother of P.W. 3. P.W. 3 had borrowed some rice from the accused. On 25.04.1997 accused wanted return of the rice. P.W. 3 pleaded his incapability to return the rice. Accused became annoyed and picked up quarrel with P.W. 3. Deceased came to the rescue of his brother and intervened and separated them (father -in -law and son -in -law). The above conduct of the deceased resulted in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the accused collecting a bow and arrows from his nearby house, shot an arrow, which pierced into the chest of the deceased.' Sustaining severe bleeding injury the deceased fell down there. Buduri Hantal is the widow of the deceased. On seeing the aforesaid assault and the injured condition of the deceased, she removed him to his house but could not take steps to shift the deceased to the hospital, because the deceased was in unconscious condition and the other villagers were absent from the village and, therefore, there was nobody to carry him. On 26.04.1997 morning the deceased succumbed to the injury and the matter was reported to the O.I.C., Malkangiri Police Station. On the direction of the O.I.C., the S.I. of Police (P.W.8) took up the investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused. In course of the investigation he attended to each method relating to visiting the spot, conducting inquest, forwarding the dead body for post -mortem examination, seizure of the incriminating materials, arrest of the accused and examination of witnesses besides forwarding the seized materials for chemical analysis and serological test.

(3.) Accused took the plea of complete denial and at the same time, in course of the cross -examination, suggested regarding a sudden quarrel between him and the deceased at the instance of the deceased. However, accused did not adduce any defence evidence.