Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 573 (ORI)

Ranjan, Hapura v. State of Orissa

2011-11-23

B.K.PATEL, L.MOHAPATRA

body2011
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. (1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case No. 91-A/17 of 1997/2000 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. (2) THE case of the prosecution is that on 28-2-1997, P.W. 2 the informant had gone for collection of 'Tadi'. While he was cutting date palm at about 12 O' Clock, he was informed by his nephew-P.W. 12 that his elder son Ranjana Behera-appellant has assaulted the second son Sanjaya Behera (deceased) in his house. P.W. 2 Thereafter immediately rushed to the house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. P.W. 1, who is the wife of the deceased disclosed that while the deceased was sitting and taking his meal the appellant came and dealt one blow by means of 'Tangia' (Axe) on his back and ran away from the spot. She and her mother-in-law Thereafter took out the axe, which fixed to the back of the deceased. THE deceased was not in a condition to talk and was removed in a Jeep to the Hospital. THE Medical Officer after examining declared him dead. Thereafter the FIR was lodged by P.W. 2 and investigation was taken up. THE appellant faced trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. (3) THE prosecution in order to prove the charge examined fourteen witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the appellant. THE appellant as a matter of fact admitted his guilt in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. Out of fourteen witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution the material witnesses are P.Ws. 1, 2, 7 and the chemical examination report. P.W. 1, is the wife of the deceased and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. She in her deposition stated that at the time of occurrence the deceased was taking his meal and the appellant came with a Mudia (Tangia) and gave a blow on the left side scapula of the deceased i.e. on the back side causing grievous injuries. She raised 'nulla' after the blow was given to the deceased. THE deceased suffered severe pain and become unconscious due to profuse bleeding. Hearing her voice others came to the spot and she disclosed to them that the appellant had assaulted the de- ceased. She raised 'nulla' after the blow was given to the deceased. THE deceased suffered severe pain and become unconscious due to profuse bleeding. Hearing her voice others came to the spot and she disclosed to them that the appellant had assaulted the de- ceased. Thereafter, the deceased was removed to Kaniha Hospital where on arriving he was declared dead. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this witness claims to have seen the assault on the deceased but in view of her statement made in cross-examination such a claim cannot be accepted. P.W. 1 in cross- examination stated that after giving food to the deceased, she entered inside the room and that she was not present near the deceased at the time he was taking food. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to show that she was absent at the time the appellant assaulted the deceased. Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve P.W. 1, who specifically deposed to have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. P.W. 2 is the father of the deceased and the appellant and he is a post occurrence witness and had lodged the FIR. THE evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 7, who conducted the post-mortem examination. P.W. 7 found one incised looking penetrating injury over the back at T.3 to T.6, level on the scapula. He was of the opinion that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be caused by M.O.I, the axe, which had been seized in course of investigation. THE chemical examination report also shows that the axe contained human blood. Apart from the above evidence available from record, we also find that the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. admitted to have killed the deceased alleging that he was not being given food and he was being harassed. (4) IN view of such nature of evidence available on record, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.