UDE NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGULU Naik (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was killed because of the arrow shot injury on the right side chest. That occurrence took place on 19.05.1995. Accused was charged as the author of that injury and the homicidal death of the deceased. In that respect, the prosecution version as it reveals from the F.I.R. and the evidence on record is that on the date of occurrence the deceased was busy in taking bricks from the kiln. The bullock carts carrying the bricks were piloted by labourers namely P.W. No. 2 Charangi Dei together with Upasi (not examined) through the plot and in front of the house of the accused. The accused not only protested for adopting such a route but also asked the labourers and the deceased to use the public road (village Danda) for the said purpose. On the third trip, when the labourers adopted the same route, the accused came with bow and arrow and shot an arrow, which pierced into the chest of the deceased and as a result of that, he died at the spot after pulling out the arrow from the chest. P.W. No. 1, brother of the deceased, getting this information came and saw the dead body and thereafter took the deceased with the villagers and reported the matter before the T. Rampur Police Station as per the F.I.R., Ext.1. After routine investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) submitted charge -sheet and that is how the Appellant faced the trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1995. While denying to the charge and claiming for trial, the Appellant stated that the entire allegation is false and baseless.

(2.) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence; P.W. 5 as witness to the seizure of the bow under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide seizure list, Ext.2; P.W. 6 as a witness to the inquest report, Ext.3 and seizure of the arrow from the spot vide seizure list, Ext. 4; P.W. 7 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post mortem report, Ext.6 and examination report of the arrow, M.O.II, vide Ext.7; P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer and amongst others, he proved the spot map, Ext.11 That spot map was not done to the scale but on approximation. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence.

(3.) IT is in the evidence of P.W. 7 as well as noted in the post mortem report, Ext. 6 that there was penetrating wound, which caused injury in the chest, penetrating over the upper lobe of right lung and penetrating on the right ventricle, which communicate with cavity. According to the doctor, the aforesaid external and internal injuries found on the dead body of the deceased resulted in bleeding inside the heart and that was the reason for the instantaneous death of the deceased. He has also stated that such penetrating injury is possible by arrow like weapon, M.O.II.