JAGABANDHU NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant by filing this appeal has assailed the judgment of conviction recorded against him for commission of offence under section 304-II IPC and the order of sentence directing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years. The accused stood charged for offence under section 304 IPC in the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1988. He has been convicted and sentenced as aforestated by the judgment and order dated 26.8.1988.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that Nityananda Naik and Chinta Naik are the sons of one Fakir Nayak. This accused is the son of Nityananda and Chinta is his uncle. Chinta Naik and the accused possessed three plots of land jointly. One Panchu @ Panchanan Lenka purchased land measuring Ac. 0.09 decimals from one of those plots leaving Ac. 0.18. He also purchased Ac.0.04 decimals from another plot and Ac.0.10 decimals from the third plot. The land was sold to Panchu by registered sale deed dated 23.12.80. The accused is a signatory to the said sale deed as to have consented to the said sale. Panchu with his family and so also his son (P.W.1) with his family used to stay at Rourkela. In view of that, the maternal uncle of P.W.1, namely Basudeb Swain (P.W.2) and deceased were looking after that landed property in the said village. It is stated that the accused was disturbing in their possession of the land by cutting and removing the standing trees and damaging the fence put around the land. Receiving the information from Basudeb (P.W.2), Panchu (P.W. 1) came to the village for settlement of the dispute.

(3.) The trial court having analyzed the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution numbering ten and upon examination of the documents admitted on behalf of the prosecution such as FIR, post mortem report and seizure lists as well as the documents proved by defence, has held the prosecution to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for commission of offence under section 304-II IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforesaid.