SUMANTA @ CHAMPU NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT challenges the conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life as per the impugned Judgment in S.T. Case No. 197 of 1994 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada. It is not disputed at the Bar that deceased Palu Naik and the sole accused Sumanta @ Champu Naik are cousin brothers and they are neighbours in village Tiansi under Morada Police Station of Mayurbhanj district.

(2.) IN substance, the prosecution case is that at about 7:30 p.m. on 25.6.1994 while the deceased with his wife were sitting in front of their house, accused quarreled with his own wife and as a offshoot of that quarrel he suddenly ran and dealt two axe blows (by its blunt side) on the head of the deceased. As a result of that impulsive assault, deceased sustained bleeding injuries. He was taken to the nearby medical center and thereafter to the district headquarters hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 1.7.1994. The mother and the widow amongst others are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence. The wearing apparels of the accused seized were sent for chemical analysis and serological test together with the blood -stained earth and the wearing apparels of the deceased, etc. and the report from the State Forensic Science & Laboratory (Exts. 14 and 15) indicate that they were containing same group of human blood. The axe, i.e. the weapon of offence was also seized and was identified by P.W.2 to be belonging to the accused. Learned Sessions Judge relied on such principal evidence besides the corroborating evidence of other witnesses and recorded the finding that deceased suffered homicidal death and accused is the author of the crime. Accordingly he recorded the aforesaid conviction and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life.

(3.) THOUGH the Appellant does not dispute the homicidal death of the deceased, on perusal of the evidence of Dr. Anujram Padhi, P.W.3, we find that he found two stitch wounds on the head of the deceased. The first one was of the size of one and half inch long situated on the anterior aspect of the left parietal region and the other one was half inch in length and situated posterior to injury No. 1. P.W.4, i.e. Dr. Prana Krushna Behera, who granted initial treatment to the deceased, stated in his deposition that he granted Injury Certificate, Ext. 2, and recorded therein that deceased had two lacerated injuries on the aforesaid area respectively of the dimension 2" Ã - ¼" Ã - ¼" and ¼" Ã - ¼" Ã - ¼". P.W.3 opined that the death was due to the aforesaid ante mortem injury and because of the depressed fracture of the skull at relevant places and hemorrhage of brain on account of that. P.W.3 further opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved post mortem report, Ext. 1. Opinion of the doctor was accepted as such by the trial Court regarding homicidal death. But we find from the facts adduced by the prosecution that though the assault was made in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. on 25.6.1994, but the deceased suffered the death in course of his treatment only on 1.7.1994. Be that as it may, evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 are sufficient to prove the homicidal death of the deceased.