MATAKA @ PRADHAN MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 13.11.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj convicting the accused -Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life in S.T. No. 23/98 of 2000 is assailed in this Jail Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case as it appears, from the F.I.R. -Ext.7 lodged by Lusa Majhi (not examined as a witness) at Badampahad Police Station on 04.12.1999 reveals that his first wife left him by leaving a three years old child namely Mataka @ Pradhan Majhi (the Appellant). After few years Lusa married for the second time but then there was no issue through his second marriage. After Mataka became major, he married and was blessed with a son who was also named as Lusa Majhi. Few years thereafter Mataka again married and remained in his father -in -law's house as illatom son -in -law. It was alleged that Mataka due to paucity could not maintain his wife and children and often came to the house of the informant and demanded money. Out of Pity the informant had given Ac.1.00 decimals of land to Matka for cultivation. On 03.12.1999 night at about 9.00 P.M. Mataka again came to the house of the informant holding a lathi and demanded from his father Lusa some more lands. Lusa, however did not agree to the request made by Mataka. Being enraged Mataka, it was alleged assaulted the informant and also Jawana Majhi, the wife of Lusa, who was thrashing paddy in the village 'danda'. According to the F.I.R. story Jawana after receiving blows by the lathi fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Seeing the situation the villagers watched the dead body and Lusa went to the Police Station and informed the fact which was reduced to writing. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the Officer -in -Charge -P.W.13 of Badampahad Police Station took up investigation of the case, went to the spot, arrested the accused, seized the bamboo lathi and other incriminating materials like blood stained earth etc., made inquest over the dead body and sent the same for postmortem examination.

(3.) TO substantiate its case the prosecution got 13 witnesses examined. Out of them P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 were witnesses to the occurrence, P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 were post occurrence witnesses, P.Ws, 1, 2 and 3 were the seizure witnesses, P.W.4 heard about the occurrence at a later stage. P.W.8 was the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body, P.W.12 was the doctor who examined the accused in police station and P.W.13 was the Investigating Officer. On behalf of the accused no evidence was adduced.