Full Judgment
S.N. Phukam, C.J.
1. This Jail Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-12-1993 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 22/1993 (S.C. No. 126/1993).
2. The accused-appellant alias Bijay was booked for trial under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder of Krushna alias Satrughan Sahu. He was found guilty under the above section and convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased and the accused being co-villagers were engaged in the business of labour contract in the State of Manipur. On 3-5-1985, the deceased had returned to his village, 10/15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused had also come back to the village. It is alleged that on 5-5-1985 at about 7 a.m., accused came to the house of deceased, called him and both of them went to village tea-stall for taking tea with one Laxman Sahu, (not examined). All the three persons came to the grocery shop of Pitabas Pradhan, P.W. 5. It is stated by the prosecution that accused stabbed the deceased with a knife in the shop of Pitabas Pradhan, P.W. 5. Thereafter, the deceased started running oh the village road and was chased by the accused with the knife. While the deceased was running, the accused again stabbed him on the village road. The deceased fell down and crawled up to the house of Mangulu Swain, P.W. I .It has been alleged that at that place also accused dealt further blows by knife on the deceased. Thereafter, the accused was dragged away with the knife to his house and the deceased was shifted to his house and later on to Khallikote hospital by bullock-cart and tempo. He succumbed to the injuries at 10-30 a.m. Police was informed about the incident. The FIR has been marked as Ext. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted showing the accused as absconder. He was apprehended subsequently and faced the trial.
4. The plea of the accused is total denial of the charge. He has further pleaded that the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5 and 6, are relations of deceased and there was village rivalry amongst them. He has not denied in the statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that he was doing labour contract with the deceased, but according to him, the deceased misappropriated the money and did not make proper payment to the labourers. He has taken the plea of alibi by stating that at the time of occurrence, he was at Bombay. No witness Was examined on behalf of the. defence.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 7 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 8 arrived at the place after the occurrence. P.W. 2, Dr. N. Mishra, first treated the deceased at Khallikote Primary Health Centre and submitted his report, marked as Ext. I. P.W. 3 is a seizure witness and he has proved the seizure list as Ext. 6. P.W. 4 is one of the Investigating Officers and he also seized a telegram marked Ext. X alleged to have been sent by the deceased on 2-7-1985 from Manipur. P.W. 9 is another Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 is the Inspector of Police, who ultimately submitted the charge-sheet.
6. It is not disputed that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The only point to be considered is whether the accused was the perpetrator of the crime.
7. Various points had been urged before the trial Court and, from the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that those have been properly dealt with.
P.W. 1 has stated that on hearing hullah, he came out from his house to the village road and saw the accused-appellant chasing the deceased with a knife. The deceased fell down in front of his (P.W. 1's) house and the accused-appellant inflicted stab injuries on different parts of his body. He has further stated that this was seen by Naga Sahu, P.W. 7 and other persons. According to him, one Balaram Sahoo, a relation of the accused, physically dragged away the accused. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Khallikote Hospital where he died. In cross-examination, it has been brought out that this witness is related to both the accused and the deceased. Therefore, his evidence cannot be disbelieved.
P.W. 2, Dr. Narahari Mishra, was the Medical Officer of Khallikote P.H.C. On 5-5-1985, he examined the deceased and found as many as eight injuries. Though he has stated that the injuries were simple, but he has also stated that there was bleeding from all the injuries.
P.W. 3 is only a seizure witness.
P.W. 4 was the Officer-in-charge of Khallikote Police Station, who has investigated into the case.
P.W. 5 is a co-villager of the accused and the deceased. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 a.m. or so, the deceased was purchasing a cigarette from his shop. At that time, the accused-appellant, who was standing at the back of the deceased, stabbed the deceased with a knife. Thereafter the deceased ran away and the accused followed him. He has further stated that the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and he came to know that the deceased was shifted to Khallikote Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Though in cross-examination he has stated that the police ) officer visited his village on the same day, but he was examined after two days.
P.W. 6 has specifically stated that the accused stabbed the deceased on his back with a knife. The deceased ran towards his house and the accused followed him.
P.W. 7 has stated that on hearing hullah, he came out from his house to the village road and saw that in front of the house of P.W. 1 the deceased was lying on his back and the accused dealt two blows with a knife on the deceased.
P.W. 8 arrived at the spot after the occurrence.
P.W. 9 is a police officer. From his evidence, we find that the distance between the shop of P.W. 5 and the place where the deceased fell down is only 95 feet. He has further stated that he could not examine other witnesses in the village-because the adult male members of the village had left the village out of fear.
P.W. 10 is another police officer who examined some witnesses including P.W. 8 and submitted charge-sheet under Section 302, IPC. According to him, P.W. 6 was examined on 22-9-1985.
8. From the evidence, as extracted above, it is absolutely clear that the accused-appellant not only gave stab blows to the deceased with a knife in the shop of P.W. 5, but also chased him and gave him several strokes in front of the house of P.W. I. Therefore, the intention to commit murder is absolutely clear. We may state here that though the accused-appellant has taken the plea of alibi stating that at the relevant time he was 'at Mumbai, the same has not been proved as no witness has been examined by the defence to support the plea. !
9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the informant has not been examined which is fatal for the prosecution. We are enable to accept this submission as the FIR has already been proved and marked as Ext. 5. It has also' been urged that the eye-witnesses were not examined by the police immediately after the occurrence. This has been dealt with by the trial Court and we accept the finding. We may add that eye-witnesses were examined after two days and delay has been explained by the investigating officer. Some contradictions have been found out, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, we are of the opinion that those are very minor inasmuch as all the witnesses have testified that knife blows were inflicted by the accused-appellant on the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the doctor, P.W. 2, found eight injuries and opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. But, we cannot lose sight of the fact that they were bleeding injuries. From the post-mortem report (Ext. 10), it is found that there were fourteen external injuries. Therefore, it has been urged that the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 2) is not acceptable and the trial Court has also discarded Ext. 10. So it cannot be concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the statement of the eyewitnesses about the injuries caused by the appellant by means of a knife on the person of the deceased. The trial Court has dealt with all the points and we accept the findings arrived at by it.
10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
A. Pasayat, J.
11. I agree.