CHINTA ALIAS PRAFULLA DEHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellant Chinta Prafulla Dehury is directed against the Judgment dated 30/9/1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1994 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him there under to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that on 9/7/1993 at about 10 P.M. an F.I.R. was registered at Basta Police Station. Basta, Balasore on the basis of a complaint lodged by P.W. 1, Taramani Sethi. The said complaint was initially received at the spot at about 4 P.M. on 9/7/ 1993 which was subsequently registered at the said police station on 9/7/1993 at about 10 P.M. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the informant was working as a maid servant in the house of Panalal Jojodia (since deceased) since the preceding two and half years on monthly pay of Rs. 300.00. The informant used to go to the house of the deceased everyday at 7.30 A.M. in the morning and return home at about 5 P.M. The deceased used to reside alone in the premises of the old rice mill. One Phagala Bindhani used to work as a watchman at night in the said old rice mill of the deceased and two boys namely, Kageswar and Anna used to reside on rent in a part of the premises of the said old rice mill of the deceased. In that part of the rice mill the aforesaid two boys installed a leaf pressing machine. However, due to her illness she did not go to the house of the deceased for the last three preceding days. During her absence, the deceased used to bring his food from the market for his own consumption. On the date of the incident, she came to the house of the deceased at about 9 A.M. in the morning when the night watchman Phagala Bindhani was sitting outside and he told the informant that the deceased had gone to the bank for bringing money. At that time, the machine room was closed and the two boys were not there. However, the deceased returned to his aforesaid rice mill at about 11 A.M. and after taking meal he slept in his room. When the informant was washing utensils her son Maheswar came and both of them went to the bank for bringing Rs. 100/- for her sons admission in the school. After returning from the bank, she could see that the deceased went outside for attending the call of nature. When she was driving out some cattle which were grazing in the field in front of the house of the deceased, she saw a person came out from a nearby jungle and stood silently near the T.V. Room. He was the appellant. On 4/6 earlier occasions the appellant came to meet the deceased. The deceased asked the appellant for arranging a watchman. After driving out the cattle, the informant went towards the appellant. When the appellant asked her to go towards him, on seeing the activities of the appellant when she did not go near the appellant, he chased her by abusing in filthy language. He was then wearing a banian and a check lungi and his head was covered with napkin (Indian gamuchha). When her son went near the appellant, he pressed the neck of her son. However her son ran away from there. Thereafter, the appellant came near the informant and gave her blows on her face with fist. She also ran away out of fear and entered into the room of Gandiram and closed the door. The appellant then sat outside in the verandah and abused her. However, Gandhibudha and his two sons namely, Suruja and Raghu dissuaded the appellant and thereafter the appellant went away from that place. At that time her son also returned to that place. She could see from the window that the accused stood under a date tree. Thereafter, she came out from the room and could see that the appellant was proceeding towards the house of Jojodia (within rice mill premises). She reported all these facts to Suruja and Raghu and asked them to take care of the deceased as the appellant might kill him. But nobody paid any heed to her request. Immediately after that she could hear dumdum sound from inside the house of deceased for about half an hour. Out of fear, she could not enter the house. Little thereafter, Khageswar and Anna came to the mill on a cycle and five minutes later, said Khageswar and Anna came out from the house of the deceased with their cycle and appellant Chinta was also with them. Around 10/15 minutes later on, after their departure, Narayan Master with 7/8 persons went inside the mill being accompanied by the informant and found that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the room. She noticed that blood was coming out from the mouth of the deceased. Blood, broken bricks and glasses of bottle were lying scattered in the room. At that time, the deceased was in a critical condition and he was unable to speak out. People shifted the deceased to the hospital. She further claimed in the said complaint that the appellant had murdered the deceased by means of bricks, stones and glasses of bottle.

(3.) On the basis of the said complaint, as already stated above, a case under Section 302, IPC was registered at the said police station against the appellant. After usual investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. On perusal of the materials on record, learned trial Court framed a charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. In course of trial, in all twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was of simple denial of the prosecution case.