PADIA @ PRADEEP KUMAR SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2004 passed by Sri P.K. Panigrahi, Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 631 of 2002 in which he while acquitting one of the accused namely Raghu Sahoo of offence under Section 302/109 I.P.C. convicted the present Appellants namely Padia@Pradeep Kumar Samal, Sibuna@Siba Parija and Bulu@Abhimanyu Mishra under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life is under challenge. Therefore, all the aforesaid appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.04.2002 at about 2 PM, Nabina@ Nabakishre Samal (here -in -after called "the deceased") was taken forcibly by the Appellants to a nearby 'Sulabha Souchalaya' where a stab blow was given on his abdomen. The deceased somehow managed to escape in an injured condition to the house of the informant Jebani Samal, who is the brother -in -law of -the deceased. The deceased disclosed before the informant and his family members and others that the Appellants forcibly took him and injured him by giving a stab blow. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. F.I.R. having been lodged, police registered a P.S. Case and took up investigation, during the course of which witnesses were examined, inquest was held, the dead body was sent for post -mortem, seizures were made and ultimately, charge sheet was submitted. All the accused persons stood indicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. In addition one of the accused namely Raghu Sahoo stood indicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C. During the course of trial the plea of the accused persons was one of the total denial.

(3.) THE learned advocates for the Appellants have stated in unison that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the present Appellants are not justified. Specifically it is stated that since there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the evidence of the other witnesses, who allegedly saw a part of the occurrence, is not trustworthy consequently no conviction should have been recorded. Alternately, it is argued that at the worst this is a case under Section 304 Part -I I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has supported vehemently the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.