BHASKAR BARIHA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-56
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on February 29,2020

Bhaskar Bariha Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Padampur in S.T. Case No.186/15 of 1998/S.T. Case No.32 of 2004, the appellant has preferred the present appeal from jail. The appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) The prosecution case sans unnecessary details, is that the informant Sadananda Bariha (P.W.3) is the cousin brother of the appellant. The deceased Sakuntala Bariha was the wife of the informant. The appellant and the informant along with other brothers were staying in their houses fell to their respective shares. The appellant had left his wife in her father's place at village Balipata on account of some dispute between them relating to having no issue. Two days prior to the date of occurrence, there was some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the deceased made aspersion against the appellant for not bringing his wife back from her father's place. It is the further prosecution case that in the morning hours on 29.05.1998, while the deceased was cleaning potherb leaves (in Odia 'Saga') in her courtyard for cooking, the appellant all of a sudden came there holding an axe and dealt a blow on the neck of the deceased with that axe from her backside. The axe pierced and stuck in the neck of the deceased and the appellant ran away from the spot. P.W.1 Radhika Bariha, the wife of younger brother of the informant saw the assault on the deceased by the appellant and raised hulla for which her husband and others rushed to the spot and they immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. On the basis of the first information report lodged by P.W.3 before the officer in charge of Sohela police station, Sohela P.S. Case No.39 dated 29.05.1998 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The appellant was charged by the learned trial Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) During course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. P.W.1 Radhika Bariha is the wife of the younger brother of the husband of the deceased and she is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 Kr. Sashi Dei Bariha is the daughter of the younger brother of the husband of the deceased and she is a post occurrence witness who came to the spot hearing hulla of P.W.1 and noticed the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries and she further stated to have seen the appellant coming with an axe to the door of P.W.1. She stated that P.W.1 disclosed before her about the appellant dealing axe blow to the deceased. P.W.3 Sadananda Bariha is the informant and the husband of the deceased. He is a post occurrence witness before whom P.W.1 disclosed about the assault made by the appellant on the deceased. He also removed the deceased to the Sohela hospital where she was declared dead. He is also a witness to the inquest report. P.W.4 Satyananda Bariha is also a post occurrence witness who came to the spot hearing hulla of P.W.1 and found the deceased was having pain and unable to speak. On his query, the deceased disclosed that the appellant dealt axe blow on her. He is also a witness to the inquest report vide Ext.2 and also a witness to the seizure of blood stained earth, sample earth, axe and cot as per seizure list Ext.3 and also seizure of lungi of the appellant as per seizure list Ext.4. P.W.5 Jagat Bariha is the elder brother of the appellant and he stated to have heard hulla of his wife (P.W.1) and rushed to the spot to see the deceased lying on the ground with the axe pierced to her neck and there was profuse bleeding from her neck. He further stated to have gone to the house of the father-in-law of the appellant and found the appellant present there who was arrested by police later on. P.W.6 Bhagabatia Naik stated to have come to the spot hearing hulla of P.W.1 where he found the deceased lying on the ground sustaining injury on her neck. He further stated to have located the appellant in the house of his father-in-law and on his query, the appellant made extra judicial confession before him to have dealt blow to the deceased. He further stated about the arrest of the appellant from the house of his father-in-law. P.W.7 Makardwaj Bhoi also stated to have come to the spot hearing hulla of P.W.1 and noticed injury on the neck of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He stated about the arrest of the appellant from Balikata. P.W.8 Dr. Ghanashyam Nath was the Assistant Surgeon attached to District Headquarters Hospital, Bargarh who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 29.05.1998 and noticed injury on her neck and he proved the post mortem report vide Ext.5. P.W.9 Ramesh Bhoi also stated to have come near the house of the deceased hearing hulla of P.W.1 and noticed her lying on the ground in a pool of blood. P.W.1 disclosed before him about the assault made on the deceased by the appellant. He stated to have removed the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead by the doctor. He is also a witness to the seizure of axe, blood stained earth and sample earth etc. under seizure list Ext.3. The prosecution exhibited five documents. Ext.1 is the first information report, Ext.2 is the inquest report, Exts.3 and 4 are the seizure lists and Ext.5 is the post mortem report.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.