ARAKHITA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A trifle dispute between Meghanada Sahu, the deceased and the accused, a co -villager of Barabhaya village under Narasinghpur P.S. resulted in homicidal death of the deceased and conviction of the accused -Appellant under Section 302 IPC followed with sentence of imprisonment for life as per the impugned judgment of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1997 (46 of 1997) arising out of G.R. Case No. 14 of 1994 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was running a grocery shop in his residential house. About two years before the date of occurrence, i.e., 12.2.1997 accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2507/ - from the deceased but did not repay the same and therefore, there was misunderstanding and quarrel between the two. A few days before the occurrence accused suspected that the deceased had applied witchcraft on him for non -payment of the loan amount and therefore, he picked up quarrel with the deceased. At about 7 P.M. on 12.2.1997 the accused came upto the front of the house of the deceased scolding him in filthy language. The deceased sitting in his shop protested and then the accused challenged him to come out from the premises. The deceased responded, came forward and protested the scolding and abusive language used by the accused. There was scuffle between the two and in course of that accused brought out a knife concealed by him underneath the chadar put by him as a cover on his body and inflicted injuries. There was a struggle for possession of the knife and in that process the deceased sustained some injuries on his palm, finger and also elbow but the accused could successfully snatch away the knife and dealt a stab blow to the chest and because of that the deceased succumbed at the spot but after moving a few steps.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charge. Amongst them, P.Ws.1 and 4, the daughter and the widow of the deceased besides P.W.9, a co -villager deposed as eye -witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 supported the prosecution in relation to recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., the knife M.O.I under seizure list Ext.1 and P.W.8 Dr. P.K. Sahu proved the post -mortem report Ext.11 relating to the homicidal death of the deceased due to ante -mortem injuries. P.W.6 is the scribe of the F.I.R. and P.W.10 is the I.O.. Ext.5 is the F.I.R. and Ext.6/1 is the inquest report. Besides that Ext.13 the spot map, Ext.14 is the statement of the accused and Ext.15 is the report from the S.F.S.L. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence.