DEEPAK KUMAR PATRO @ DIPU AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PATRICIDE is the crime alleged against the accused Appellant -Deepak Kumar Patro @ Dipu and he was charged under Section 302 IPC. Accused -Deepak together with other two accused persons were charged under Section 201/34 IPC for removing the dead body of late Suba Patro, the deceased by throwing it in the public road after removing the same from the place of occurrence. Admittedly, there was no eye -witness to the occurrence and prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, viz., homicidal death of the deceased, discovery of the incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and presence of blood of the same group on the wearing apparels of the accused -Deepak and the deceased so also on the mattresses like Kantha, Kambal (Blanket) and Chadar (Bed Sheet) and presence of blood stain on the walls and the windows of the occurrence room. Learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 268 of 2001 arising out of G.R. Case No. 66 of 2001 of the court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur held that evidence led by the prosecution proves the aforesaid circumstances so as to prove the charge under Section 302 and 201/34 IPC against accused -Deepak and all the accused persons respectively. Accordingly, he awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201/34 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased was a drunkard and rowdy man. In the night of 24.1.2001 in drunken condition he drove his wife, daughter and the accused out from the house, The accused escorted his mother and the sister and left them in the house of his maternal uncle, i.e., Brajabandhu Patra, P.W. 1. He returned to the house and pretended that because of paucity of space to sleep in the house of P.W. 1 he was to spend the night with the deceased. In the night when the deceased in intoxicated conditions was in slumber, accused suffering from disturbed mind and agitation because of the behaviour of the deceased took the opportunity and utilized the sword, i.e., M.O.I. of the deceased and went on inflicting injuries notwithstanding the effort of the deceased to escape from one room to other inside the house. After completing the act of murder, accused threw the blood stained sword into the well inside the house premises and rushed to P.W.1 and revealed the truth. He however, did not heed to the advice of P.W.1 to surrender before the police and confess. On the other hand, he returned to the house with the employees (in the tea stall) of P.W.1. They are the co -accused persons. With their help, he threw dead body near Kandra Sahi Chhak (Berhmapur town) on the following day morning, i.e. 25.1.2001. After noticing dead body of the deceased which was lying at the aforesaid spot, elder brother of the deceased, namely, Deebakar Patra lodged information report before the police. A routine investigation was undertaken. In course of that investigation, it could be known that accused -Deepak committed the murder and the remaining two co - accused persons assisted him to dispose of the dead body so as to screen the offender. In course of investigation, all possible incriminatory articles were seized, recovered or discovered and on the basis of a prima facie case charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution examined five witnesses. Amongst them, P.W. 1 was a witness to the extra -judicial confession of accused -Deepak. P.W. 3 is the informant being the younger brother of the deceased. P.W.4 was a witness to recovery of weapon of offence and the mattresses under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide seizure list Ext.9/1 and Ext. 10/1 respectively. P.W.2 was the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased examined the weapon of offence M.O.I. and proved the post -mortem report Ext.2 relating to the homicidal death of the deceased and the opinion report Ext.3 that injuries found on the dead body of the deceased is possible by such weapon. P.W.5 Ramakrushna Das was the O.I.C. of Badabazar Police Station. He investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet: Amongst the exhibited documents, besides the documents noted above, Ext.1 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. and Exts. 19, 22 and 22/1 are the three relevant documents. Amongst them, Ext. 19 is the report of the Scientific Officer, Ext.22 is the copy of the forwarding letter sending the articles to the R.F.S.L., Berhampur and Ext.22/1 is the report from the chemical analyst and the serologist of R.F.S.L., Berhampur. The wearing apparels of the deceased, the accused and the blanket, etc. were marked as M. Os.II to IX.