TANGURAM PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhankanal for having committed the murder of his step-brother, Goura Pradhan on 9.10.1980.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that the deceased was the son of the first wife and the appellant is the son of the second wife of Jadu Pradhan (P.W. 9). They were living separate in mess and property. On the date of occurrence at about 9 a.m. the deceased was fancing a guava tree standing in the back-yard of their homestead with thorn twigs. The appellant protested saying that the deceased had no right to fence a part of the homestead which had fallen to his share. At this, there was exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant. All on a sudden the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of a tangia on the neck and head. As the handle broke down, he picked up the Tangia of the deceased from the ground and repeated the assault by means of it although the deceased had in the mean time fallen down on the ground being seriously injured. As a resuit of the assault, the deceased died instantaneously. The appellant went to Balimi Police Station and lodged station diary entry (Ext. 11). The brother-in-law of the deceased, Giridhari Naik (P.W. 1) lodged the FIR. (Ext. 1) on 9. 10.80 at 2 p.m. as to the occurrence at the said police station. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 17) in course of investigation made inquest over the dead-body (Ext. 6) and sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. He seized from the place of occurrence two blood-stained Tangia (M. Os. I and II) by seizure-list (Ext. 9) and received the blood stained napkin of the deceased (MO. III) after the post-mortem examination. He des-patched the blood-stained articles, such as, the Tangia and the napkin referred to above for chemical examination and serologists report (Exts. 14 and 15). After close of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The plea of the appellant was denial simpliciter. On consideration of the prosecution evidence the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the charge. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced him as already referred to above.