GUJI DHARMA RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code (in short. the I.P.C.), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The two appellants are brothers. Deceased is the son of the informant (P.W. 1). It is alleged that on 13-4-1994, the deceased had gone to a liquor shop at about 9.30 A.M. At that time both the accused persons came together and shouted that they were searching for the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was assaulted by the two accused persons and ultimately died on account of the injury caused due to assault by a stone. The aforesaid incident was seen by P.W. 3, who was working in the liquor shop and others. P.W. 3 informed P.W. I about the incident and ultimately both of them went to Ichhapur Police Station and orally reported about the incident. The police came to the place of occurrence and opined that the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Golanthara Police Station. Ultimately. a written report was lodged at Golanthara Police Station and P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer, after conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 302/34, I.P.C.

(2.) Among others prosecution examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 as the purported eye-witnesses. However. P.W. 4 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W. 5 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem and submitted his report as per Ext. 3. He found eight injuries, all contusions and abrasions on different parts of the body including head and chest. He opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injuries on the chest and the belly were sufficient to cause the death. The other witnesses were formal witnesses. The trial Court relying- upon the evidence of P.W. 3 as corroborated by the F.I.R. and the evidence of the doctor found both the acused persons guilty under Section 302/34. I.P.C.

(3.) In this appeal it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that as per the versions of P. Ws. 1 and 3 they had gone to Ichhapur Police Station and had orally reported about the incident and the police had come to the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that no attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove the earliest information before Ichhapur Police Station and this creates a doubt regarding the subsequent FIR. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 3 had gone to Ichhapur Police Station and had orally reported about the incident. However. P.W. 1 has stated that no written report was submitted at Ichhapur Police Station, nor the oral information had been reduced to writing. Event though the Investigating Officer could have ascertained about such reporting. Non-examination of any witness from Ichhapur Police Station to prove the earliest statement is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this context it has to be seen that the accused persons have suggested that a false case has been foisted against them at the instance of one Ullal Belaya. However, such suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1, the informant as well as P.W. 3, the eyewitness.