- (1.)The appeal arises out of the judgment of the Orissa High Court in confirmation of the common judgment passed by the learned sessions judge, Bhubaneshwar.
(2.)Three accused persons faced trial for having committed offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by intentionally causing death of one Surendra nayak (the deceased). The contextual facts depicts that the deceased was serving as a sweeper in the S. C. B. Medical college, Cuttack and was residing at kedarpali at Bhubaneshwar in the house of his mother in-law, Labanya Bewa, along with his wife, Rama Dei (PW-1). The accused used to go daily to Cuttack to attend to his work from Bhubaneshwar. On 4th May, 1989, he left his house to catch the morning train for going to Cuttack. Since the deceased had to carry the clothes of his wife and since the same were left at home, PW-1 carried them and ran after the deceased to hand over the same to him. While standing on the road looking at her husband, PW-1, being the wife, suddenly found that her husband, who was then proceeding to bhubaneshwar railway station, being attacked by accused Bapi Nayak, Braja nayak and Kalia Nayak with a 'bhalla', a 'katari, and a 'sword'. Her husband was running for life on road and on seeing, PW- 1 immediately rushed inside the house and called the mother out. It is at this stage, the mother and the daughter witnessed that the accused persons were coming out of Hotel Venus-Inn with weapons in hands stained with blood. Entering inside the hotel, they found marks of blood stains on the steps of the hotel and following the marks of blood, they went upstairs and found the deceased lying dead on the roof in a pool of blood. It is on this incident the accused persons were tried under section 302/341. P. C. , as noticed above, and stand convicted with punishment for imprisonment of life.
(3.)Against the order of conviction, however, the accused persons moved the High court. The High Court also, upon proper scrutiny and analysis of evidence, recorded its concurrence with the order of the learned sessions judge and retained the punishment. It is this order which has been challenged by one of the accused persons in the appeal before this Court by the grant of special leave.