ALEKHA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A trivial dispute resulted is unfortunate death of Hrushikesh Mishra, hereinafter referred to as the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution on 20.3.1998, at about 5.30 P.M. deceased and Madhu Barik, P.W.15 proceeded to village Rajdanga to see Jatra. On the way they met accused -Appellant Alekha Naik. The later was then in intoxicated condition, but he invited the deceased and P.W.15 and proposed to buy drink for them. They went the shop and consumed tadi. Before the deceased and P.W.15 could finish the drink, accused Appellant took excuse and went away to his house. On demand for the price of Tadi by the shopkeeper, deceased and P.W.15 replied that the accused -Appellant was to pay the price. That was not being agreed upon by the ' shop owner, somebody else made payment. Then the deceased and P.W.15 came in front of the house of the accused -Appellant to express their dissatisfaction on the aforesaid conduct of the Appellant. Exchange of words at that place resulted in dealing of lathi blows by the accused -Appellant on the head of P.W.15 and chest of the deceased. P.W.15 could escape and deceased sustaining injury fell down and died at the spot. Police arrived at the spot on the following day. But then the skin, flesh and muscle on some parts of the dead body had been eaten by Jackal like beast. However in course of post mortem examination, it could be noticed that there was fracture of 10th and 11th ribs of chest and death was due to shock and haemorrhage and that such injury was ante mortem in nature. Recording such opinion Dr. Pradipta Kumar Samantaray, P.W.13 submitted the post mortem report, Ext. 6 and therefore, the accused -Appellant together with the acquitted accused faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 113 -A/28 of 1998/2000, arising out of G.R. Case No. 21 of 1998 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Pallahara. Prabhakar Naik, the acquitted accused was charged for the offence under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the Appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Because of absence of evidence of abatement, the Trial Court acquitted co -accused Prabhakar Naik, but finding the evidence of the eye -witness P.W.2, injured witness P.W.15 and the pre -occurrence and post occurrence witnesses sufficient to prove the charge against Appellant, he recorded the finding that the Appellant is the author of the ante mortem injury which resulted in homicidal death of the deceased and, therefore, the Appellant is guilty of the offence of murder. Accordingly, he convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited series of documents marked Exts. 1 to Ext. 14 and a bamboo lathi and two knives as M.Os. II to IV.

(3.) WHILE advancing argument before us, learned Counsel for the Appellant does not dispute credibility of evidence of P.W.13, who recorded the opinion on homicidal death of the deceased and opined that the bamboo lathi could be the possible weapon of offence. Accordingly, he proved the post mortem report Ext. 6 and the opinion report Ext. 7. It transpires from the post mortem report and the evidence of P.W.13 that there was loss of skin, flesh and muscle from certain limbs and according to the opinion of the doctor, the aforesaid condition was due to flesh and skin being eaten away by animals like jackals and dogs. Therefore, the only injury, which could be produced by lathi, was resultantly caused fracture of 10th and 11th ribs lading to death of the deceased. We therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding homicidal death of the deceased.