SIRAJI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the convict Siraji Naik @ Dhudi assails his conviction U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as "I.P.C." for brevity) and order of sentence of imprisonment for life in S.T. Case No.213/10 of 1996-99 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on 24th July, 1999.

(2.) Shorn of all unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.1995 at about 9 A.M. the informant Sarat Kumar Naik (P.W.1) and his father, deceased Narottam Naik, after reaping paddy, were collecting paddy sheaves from their paddy field at Bhedakhandimundatala. At that time Jibardhan Majhi, accused, since acquitted, came over the ridge of the land of Narottam Naik, the deceased. The deceased asked the said Jibardhan as to why he came through his ridge. At this Jibardhan started abusing the deceased and called for his master, convict Siraji Naik. On hearing the call of Jibardhan, it is alleged that convict Siraji Naik, Dasarath Naik, Ashok Naik and Anand Naik rushed to the spot for assaulting the deceased. It is further alleged that the convict Siraji snatched away the axe from the hand of Jibardhan Majhi and dealt axe blow from the front side to the neck of the deceased Narottam Naik for which the deceased fell down and after that the convict Siraji dealt a blow with a sickle for which a portion of the sickle got broken and stuck to the left arm pit of the deceased. Thereafter Dasarath Naik, Ashok Naik, Anand Naik and Jibardhan Majhi assaulted the deceased. Seeing this P.W.-1, the informant proceeded to rescue his father. At that time Dasarath Naik and Anand Naik caught hold of him. Seeing Narottam Naik dead, all the accused persons left the spot. It is further alleged that Dasarath Naik and convict Siraji Naik ran away with the axe and the broken portion of the sickle. It is also the case of the prosecution that prior to the occurrence, the father of the informant had a case with convict Siraji Naik U/s.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') for lands and because of that convict Siraji Naik was bearing a grudge on the deceased.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons in this case is that of complete denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. It is their further case that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further it is also decipherable from the examination of Jibardhan Majhi recorded U/s. 313 of the Code that while he was going to cut paddy from the land of convict Siraji Naik, on seeing him deceased Narottam Naik abused him and chased to assault him with an axe which he snatched away and thereafter the deceased Narottam Naik rushed at him with a sickle and to save him when he brandished the axe, it hit the body of deceased Narottam Naik. The further plea of Jibardhan Majhi is that the sickle fell from the hand of deceased Narottam Naik and Narottam Naik when fell down on the sickle, the sickle pierced to his body.