STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PANCHANAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 9th April, 1997 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur acquitting the accused Respondents from the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, "IPC" and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 123/10 of 1996, is assailed in this Government Appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case, sworn of unnecessary details, is that on 3.6.1995 at about 12.30 P.M. while Babaji Jend was entering into his homestead land, accused Panchanan fired at him with his double barrel gun. The informant, P.W.1 on hearing the sound of fire came out of his house and saw Panchanan standing near the door of the main entrance with the gun and firing 3 4 rounds aiming at his father Babaji Jena, consequently Babaji having suffered gun shot, fell down. Soon thereafter, accused Panchanan, his wife Subasini, daughter Sasirekha (Litu) and Madhurekha (Tutua) being armed with sticks came to the deceased and started assaulting. At that juncture, the neighbours gathered at the spot, but they were not permitted to go near the body of Babaji as Rdjrekha (Mitu), another daughter of Panchanan, who was also holding a double barrel gun was standing near the body and threatened the onlookers. It is alleged that she also fired 3 4 rounds, which hit the nearby walls of the house, coconut trees etc. The informant after the incident rushed to the Bari Police Out post and lodged the F.I.R.(Ext.1). On the basis of the said F.I.R., police went to the spot and took care of the situation. In course of investigation, inquest was held over the body of Babaji, the same was sent for post mortem examination, blood stained earth, wearing apparels as well as one double barrel gun was seized, different persons were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, incriminating materials were sent to the serologist for chemical examination, and the gun was sent for ballistic examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against two accused persons in G.R. Case No. 629 of 1995 in the court of learned SDJM, Jajpur. On verification of the documents submitted by the police and on being prima facie satisfied, learned SDJM took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.

(3.) IN order to substantiate their case, prosecution got examined ten witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the son of Babaji and is an eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.2 is a villager and an eye witness, P.W.3 is another villager and is an eye witness, P.W.4 is another son of Babaji and also an eye witness, P.W.5 is the informant and a co villager and was a witness to the occurrence, P.W.6 is also a witness to the occurrence, P.W.7 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Babaji, P.W.8 is a seizure witness in whose presence the bullet pouch containing six bullets tied to the waist of Panchanan was seized, P.W.9 is the I.O. and P.W.10 is the S.I. of Bari Police Station, who received the F.I.R. and is also a seizure witness.