MANAI ALIAS DHANAI MURMU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No.31 of 1995 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.94 the deceased was returning with Faka Majhinai (P.W.2), Fagala Murmu (P.W.4) and Fagalas wife from Bijatala market. On the way Fagala and his wife left the main road and resorted to a short cut route at Balarampur and the deceased along with Faka Majhinai proceeded to their respective villages on the main road. On the way at about 8 P.M. it is alleged that the appellant emerged from his hide out and dealt lathi blows to the deceased. Faka Majhiani (P.W.2) ran away out of fear and concealed herself in the 'BILO for the entire night. Next day morning she went to her village Dalki and informed about the occurrence to P.W.1, the ward member, Sidheswar Murmu. P.W.1 thereafter went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased lying near the land of Ramchandra Hansda and he intimated the Rairangpur Police Station by telephone. The O.I.C., Gorumahisani Police Station received the information at 10 A.M. and entered the said information in the Station Diary. On 27.10.1994 the O.I.C. proceeded to the spot after making a station diary entry and received the report from P.W.1 and thereafter took up investigation. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the appellant had some kind of relationship with the wife of the deceased and wanted to marry her and relating to the above, there was a Punch in the village. In the Punch the deceased refused to leave his wife and therefore out of anger the appellant committed murder of the deceased. The police after investigating into the case submitted charge sheet for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of the sole eyewitness P.W.2 is not believable and even accepting the evidence of P.W.2, no offence under Section 302 is made out. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.2 does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 who conducted postmortem examination and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of the aforesaid offence. The learned counsel for the State referring to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 submitted that at least in respect of one injury there is corroboration and, therefore, the injury being on the head, the conviction of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC is justified.