STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NAIKA KABADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 26th August, 1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi -Nuapada, Bhawanipatna acquitting the accused -Respondent from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, "IPC" in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1996, is assailed in this Government Appeal.

(2.) THE incident in question relates back to the year 1996. According to the prosecution case, on 11th August, 1996 at about 4 P.M. Niktar Majhi (P.W.2) informed the father of P.W.1 that an unknown person was pressing the head of Anr. person inside the water of Kusuma Nala holding his tuft of hair and the latter was shouting. Hearing the said fact, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went near the said Nala and found that a 'pot' (dekchi) containing mushroom, a 'Pan' (kadei) and a broom were lying near the tank. They also found that Naika Kabadi (accused) was running away from the spot in a nude condition holding a napkin in his hand and while doing so, P.W.1 was glancing backward. After arriving near the embankment, he did not find his daughter and went inside the water in search of her and found that his daughter was lying dead inside. Thereafter he returned to his village and informed the said fact to the Gramarakhi and other gentlemen. Subsequently, on the next date, i.e., on 12.8.1996 the matter was reported at Th. Rampur Police Station. After receiving the report, P.W.1 took up investigation, held inquest over the body, sent the same for post mortem, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure seized the material objects, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet.

(3.) IN order to substantiate their case, prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. He has not seen the occurrence, but then saw the accused running away in a nude condition from the spot. P.W.2 is an eye witness and stated that he found the accused pressing the head of Naringi (deceased) in water of Nal catching her hair, P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest, P.W.4 is an after -occurrence witness and has stated in Court that he had no knowledge as to how the incident took place, P.W.5 is a co -villager who did not support the prosecution case, P.Ws.6 & 7 are seizure witnesses, but then they also did not support the prosecution case and stated that the accused did not confess anything in their presence. P.W.8 is Anr. seizure witness, P.W.9 is a Gramarakhi, who had informed the police about the incident, P.W.10 is a constable who assisted in the investigation, P.W.11 deposed that accused used to commit small thefts. He had no knowledge about the incident, P.W.12 corroborated the evidence of P.W.11 and deposed that accused was a thief and that P.W.2 and his daughter used to oppose the same, P.W.13 is the I.O., who conducted investigation, and P.W.14 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy.