Decided on January 01,1973

Naran Swain Appellant


ACHARYA,J. - (1.) THE appellant stands convicted under Section 307 IPC and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R. I. for a period of seven years.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 21 -4 -68 at about 5 P. M. Rusi Mohapatra, P. W. 5 (the injured) was working in his garden at Mangalpur. At that time a bullock belonging to Jayakrushna Swain the father of the appellant, entered into the garden of P. W. 5 and ate away and damaged his plantain trees. P. W. 5 called Jayakrushna and asked him to take away his bullock from the garden. At that time there was a quarrel and hot exchange of words between P. W. 5 and Jayakrushna. Hearing this quarrel the appellant came running from his house situated nearby, with a Bhali and with the same dealt 6 to 7 blows on the head and legs of P. W. 5 causing bleeding injuries on his person. Accused Krupasindhu Swain, another son of Jayakrushna came to the spot with a lathi and assaulted P. W. 5 on his back. Some P. Ws. who witnessed the occurrence and other co -villagers who later came to that place took P. W. 5 to the Mangalpur Primary Health Centre for his treatment, P. W. 1, a nephew of P. W. 5 heard the entire incident from P. W. 5 on the next day morning when P. W. 5 regained senses, and then P. W. 1 lodged information in the Pipli P. S. at 11 A. M. on 22 -4 -68. The officer -in -charge, Pipli P. S. investigated into the case and submitted the charge -sheet in the case. After the commitment proceeding the appellant and his brother Krupasindhu were charged under Section 307/34 IPC in the trial court, and the appellant only has been convicted under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, and his brother krupasindhu has been convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. As his brother has not preferred any appeal against his aforesaid conviction, it is not necessary for me to deal with his case in this appeal. The defence plea is a complete denial of the prosecution case. The appellant has also taken the plea of alibi.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined 7 witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 1 is the nephew of P. W. 5 who lodged the FIR. P. W. 5. as stated above is the injured. P. W. 6 is the doctor. P. W. 7 is the I. O. who investigated into the case and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.;

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