GANGARAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.06.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.46 of 1998, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution was launched on the basis of an First Information Report lodged by one Ganpat Majhi (PW-1) stating, inter alia that on 28.01998, he had been to his in-laws' house at Nandapur. On his return in the same evening, while he was taking food, inquired about his son, Naresh Kumar Majhi (the deceased), as he was absent at home at that time. Thereafter, he enquired about his son from the villagers and asked them for help to search for him. But they could not get any trace of him. Subsequently, he learnt from one Raju Rout (PW-6), a co-villager that he has seen Naresh with Gangaram Sahu and Dhanrajsingh Majhi of the village at about 7.00 P.M. in the evening. On the next morning, i.e., on 01.03.1998, the villagers found that Naresh (the deceased) was lying dead in the forest with stab injuries on his belly. Thereafter, the informant went to Nuapada Police Station and lodged the FIR (Ext.1/3) at about 110 P.M. on 01.03.1998, which was registered as Nuapada PS Case No.23 dated 01.03.1998 under Section 302 IPC. Since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the OIC, Nuapada PS (PW-10) took up investigation immediately.

(3.) In course of investigation, the IO drew up a formal FIR (Ext-1/3) and examined the informant in the police station itself. Thereafter, he issued command certificate to the Constable No.225 to guard the dead body of the deceased. He visited the spot and made inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext-6) and also issued dead body challan (Ext-7) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination; prepared the spot map (Ext-8) and seized bloodstained earth from the spot vide seizure list (Ext-9). He also examined witnesses present there. On suspicion, he seized the pant and shirt of the appellant from his house and a Hero green colour cycle kept in front of the house of the appellant on production by him vide seizure list (Ext-3). On the same day, at about 6.00 P.M., the IO seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on being produced by the Constable who accompanied the dead body to District Headquarters Hospital, Nuapada for postmortem vide seizure list (Ext-10). Thereafter, he sent information to DFSL, Bhawabanipatna for sending sniffer dog and forensic team. On 02.01998 at about 00 P.M., the forensic team along with sniffer dog arrived at the spot. The sniffer dog led the investigating team to the house of the appellant and the deceased. The wearing apparels of the appellant were sent to DFSL, Bhawanipatna for examination vide forwarding report (Ext.12). Ext-13 is the report of the chemical examination of the wearing apparels of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 04.01998. While in police custody, he narrated the entire incident to the IO in presence of witnesses, which was reduced to writing vide Ext-1. Thereafter, the appellant led the team to a tank, where he alleged to have thrown the weapon of offence, a knife (MO-I). As such, the IO requested the villagers to assist him in searching of the knife (MO-I). After a thorough search, PW-8 finally brought out the knife from the pond and handed over the same to the IO, which was seized vide seizure list (Ext-2). Thereafter, the appellant was sent to Government Hospital, Nuapada for collection of his nail clippings. On the same day, at about 5.00 P.M., the IO seized one camera on production by one Chintamani Majhi in connection with the case as on the occasion of Shivratri, the appellant had taken photographs of some local people and girls of the village with that camera. The informant had objected to the same as the appellant had taken photographs of some of the relatives of the deceased. The said camera was seized vide seizure list-Ext-17 and kept in zima of Goyalal Majhi under zimanama (Ext-18), after taking out the roll. Subsequently, the said roll was developed; MO-II is the developed photographs and MO-III is the negative. The Police also sent MO-I to the Doctor (PW-4), who conducted the postmortem, for his opinion vide requisition-Ext-5. PW-4 gave his report vide Ext-5/1. On receipt of the postmortem report (Ext-4) and other materials, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the appellant and he faced trial.