Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 89 (ORI)

Sabara Mantri v. State of Orissa

2003-01-29

M.PAPANNA, R.K.PATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The Case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence (8.9.1992) quarrel ensued between the appellant and his younger brother Mohan (P.W.6) due to dispute over distribu¬tion of tusser eggs. In course of the quarrel, the appellant assaulted P.W.6 and the latter retaliated.The appellant became furious and brought out an axe (M.O.I) and with it assaulted the son of P.W.6 (a male child aged about 3 years) resulting in his instantaneous death. 3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 4. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution. exam¬ined nine witnesses, P.W.2 (wife of P.W.6) is the sole eye wit¬ness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed about the conduct of the appellant immediately after the occurrence. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased boy. 5. There is no doubt that the deceased had a homicidal death. The doctor had found one incised injury of 3"x1"x2" on the collar bone area of the neck of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid injury. 6. Now coming to the evidence of eye witness (P.W. 2) it may be seen that she is the mother of the deceased boy. She has clearly stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence quarrel ensued between the appellant and her husband (P.W.6) over return of money. In course of such quarrel, the appellant assaulted her husband (P.W.6) which was retaliated by the latter. He (P.W.6) also assaulted the appellant by giving a slap. There¬after the appellant assaulted the deceased boy by means of an axe resulting in his intantaneous death. Although she was cross-examined, nothing was brought out to discredit her testimony. There is no reason as to why P.W.2 would falsely implicate the appellant with the commission of the crime. She is a truthful and trust-worthy witness. Evidence of P.W.6 also supports the evi¬dence of P.W.2. He stated that there was exchange of hot words be¬tween the appellant and he himself concerning tusser eggs. The appellant assaulted him and in turn he gave a slap to the appel¬lant. She is a truthful and trust-worthy witness. Evidence of P.W.6 also supports the evi¬dence of P.W.2. He stated that there was exchange of hot words be¬tween the appellant and he himself concerning tusser eggs. The appellant assaulted him and in turn he gave a slap to the appel¬lant. Thereafter he went to the Chaukidar of the village to make a report and after he returned, he found that the appellant had killed his son with an axe. 7. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant is the author of the crime in assaulting the boy to death. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.