KUMA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-11-2
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on November 02,2020

Kuma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A. K. Mishra, J. - (1.) In this appeal, the sole appellant has challenged his conviction U/s.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as "I.P.C." for brevity) and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dtd.26.06.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkanagiri in C.T. Case No.71 of 2009.
(2.) Tersely put, the prosecution case is that on 16.07.2009 at 12 P.M. midnight in village Potrel while the informant along with her husband (deceased) and children was sleeping in their house, the accused came and called the deceased. The deceased came outside. His wife, informant and son followed him. Accused dragged him to the backside of the house. A Dibiri light was burning. Three to four unknown persons waiting there, hacked the deceased and fled away. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Accused also ran away. Hearing haullah the villagers gathered. The deceased was found lying dead at the spot. On the next day morning a village meeting was held at the instance of the informant. The accused confessed his guilt. Thereafter a written report, scribed by P.W.8, was lodged by the wife of the deceased. The said report was registered as Orkel P.S. Case No.21 dtd.17.7.2009 U/s.302/34 I.P.C. Investigation was taken up by P.W.9. During course of investigation inquest was made, post mortem was conducted by the doctor (P.W.10). The accused was arrested and forwarded to Court on 19.07.2009. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and learned S.D.J.M., Malkanagiri took cognizance in G.R. Case No.134 of 2009 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accused faced charge U/s.302/34 I.P.C.
(3.) The plea of defence was denial simplicitor. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. Defence examined none. P.W.1, 2 and 3 are co-villagers who are declared hostile. P.W.4 is the informant who proved F.I.R. (Ext.5). P.W.5 is the son of informant and deceased. Both P.Ws.4 and 5 are eye witnesses. P.W.6 an immediate neighbour of informant stated that while he was coming to the spot hearing haullah, apprehended the accused who was running away but finding him to be a co-villager, allowed him to go. P.W.7 is a witness to the inquest and seizure. As stated above, P.W.8 is the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W.9 is the investigation officer while P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination vide his P.M. report (Ext.8). Eight documents such as F.I.R., inquest report, seizure lists, dead body challan, P.M. report, etc. are exhibited on behalf of prosecution.;


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