UJJALA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code For committing patricide and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Deceased Lula Sahu was the father of the appellant who is the brother of P.W. 1. Of the two brothers, the appellant was elder. P.W. 1 was given in adoption to the elder brother of the deceased. Both the brothers were living separately in adjoining houses. In the year 1977, the deceased had executed a will in favour of P.W. 1 bequeathing his share of ancestral properties in favour of the latter for which the appellant became dissatisfied. Dissension brewed culminating in civil litigation between the appellant and the deceased, which came to the High Court and so there was no love lost between them. In view of the ill feeling the deceased used to live with P.W. 1. On 4-7-1982 in the evening the appellant returned home with his bullock cart. He unyoked the bullocks, pushed aside the cart of P.W. 1 where it was placed in front of the house and kept his own. The deceased at that time was sitting on the front verandah of the house along with P.W. 2. When he saw the action of the appellant, he protested. The appellant did not take the protest kindly and so there was a quarrel between them. In course of the quarrel, the appellant became angry, brought out a Dhipei (a heavy implement which is 'Y' shaped and is made of wood kept for support of the bullock cart when bullocks are unyoked) from the cart and dealt four to five blows on the head of the deceased. As a result he fell down unconscious on the ground. P.W. 1 took the injured first to Digapahandi Hospital where he was given preliminary treatment and then he took him to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur. On arrival he was examined and found dead. So P.W. 1 brought him back to Digapahandi hospital where the Investigating Officer came. So First Information Report. (Ext. 1) was lodged. During investigation, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination and after investigation was over, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) The defence of the appellant in the Trial Court was that after he returned home at the time and on the date of occurrence, he found that the cart of P.W. 1 was kept at the place where he usually kept his own. Therefore, he pushed away the cart of his brother and placed his own. The deceased was sitting on the front verandah of the house at that time. He rushed at the, appellant and two blows by means of a walking stick. While he was aiming a third stroke, the appellant pushed him aside as a result of which the deceased fell down on stones lying on the ground. He specifically denied to have assaulted his father.