MANORANJAN GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Bhanjanagar, in S. C. No. 59/99 (S.C. 351/99 G. D. C.), holding the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 302/341/ 34, I. P. C. and convicting them thereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Kalicharan Sabat, orally reported to the O. I. C, Surada P. S. on 7-1-1999, at 7 p.m., that his son-in-law Gopalkrushna Sahu came to his house in village Gobindapur at 4 p.m. and offered him Rs. 25,000/- sent by his son from Surat, which he did not receive, as he was alone in the house. His son-in-law Gopalkrushna informed him that he had withdrawn Rs. 27,000/- in total on that date from Surada State Bank. Gopalkrushna left the house of the informant on his cycle carrying the bag towards his village Sorisabali. 15 to 20 minutes thereafter, Chitaranjan Sabat, the elder brother of the informant came running and informed the informant that his son-in-law Gopalkrushna had been killed by accused Manu Gouda. The informant rushed out from his house and found Gopalkrushna lying with bleeding injuries on the road at a distance of about 50 yards from his house and his sister Sarojini Panigrahy, Sarojini Sabat, wife of his brother, one Nanda Gouda and others were near his son-in-law Gopalkrushna, who told him that he was restrained by accused Srikar Gouda and thereafter assaulted by accused Manoranjan Gouda by means of a khanda-kati and they took away the entire money from him. At that time accused Narayan was shouting to kill Gopalkrushna. It was also alleged that prior to the incident, accused Manoranjan Gouda had dissuaded the informant not to give his eldest daughter in marriage in village Sorisabali and after the marriage, accused Manoranjan had threatened to kill his son-in-law. It was also alleged that one year back in the month of April, accused Manoranjan had thrown bombs to the house of the informant, about which he had complained to the villagers.

(3.) The said oral report of the informant (PW 2) was reduced into writing by the I. O. (P. W. 11) and a case was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the I. O. visited the spot, seized the bicycle lying on the road and one pink colour foam handbag lying near it. He also seized blood stained earth and sample earth and deputed the A. S. I. of Police to Berhampur to conduct inquest over the dead body, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased. After post-mortem examination and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against all the accused persons.