KHILLUDU NILAKANTHA @ KHILLO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is one of the four accused persons in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1995 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore (S.C. No. 238 of 1995 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Koraput -Jeypore) arising out of G.R. Case No. 120 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Malkangiri. In the trial Court the three acquitted accused as well as the Appellant were charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 21.04.1995 at about 6.00 p.m. at Kotapalli Dangar they committed murder of Sona Hatnal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by sharing common intention. It is alleged therein that the present Appellant dealt axe below to the neck of the deceased for his instantaneous death at the spot.

(2.) THE facts involved in the case, as reveals from the lower Court's record, is that Appellant and the deceased are cousins. Appellant had a grievance against the deceased for not permitting him (Appellant) to take 'Salap' juice from 'Salap' tree. Thus, on 21.04.1995 he along with the co -accused persons were waiting at Kotapalli Dangara and on arrival of the deceased together with Hantalo Pilesu (P.W.3) and Khilla Muli (P.W.4) accused Guru Sukri and Khilla Anta @ Basudev Khillo obstructed the deceased and the Appellant dealt axe blow to the neck of the deceased causing his instantaneous death due to the cut injuries because of such blow. P.Ws.3 and 4 intimated the fact to Bisi Hantala (P.W.2) and the latter went and lodged F.I.R. Ext.3 and set the law into motion. In course of the investigation the police officer visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body and forwarded the same for post -mortem examination by Dr.R. Gouri Shankar Patnaik (P.W.1). He also seized the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on being given discovery by the Appellant. Attending to the other routine requirements, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted charge -sheet.

(3.) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution examined six witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. Accused persons did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in course of the trial.