Judgment:
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. The appellants having been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir in S. C. Case No. 29/17 of 1997 have preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-7-1996 the deceased had gone to Duhel in connection with her health programme at the Duhel School. The informant (PW 15) had carried the deceased by a cycle. At about 2.00 p.m., while both of them were returning from Duhel, appellant-Bibhisan Saramadia being armed with a Bhujali restrained them near a Chhak on Duhel-Kutenpali road. When both got down from the cycle, appellant-Bibhisen dealt blows on the neck of the deceased by means of a Bhujali. At that time, appellant No. 2, Tlkechan Saramadia suddenly rushed towards the informant from his back side holding a talwar and dealt a blow aiming at his head. In order to ward off the blow, the informant caught hold of the sword, as a result of which, he received a cut bleeding injury on his right palm. Thereafter, out of fear, the informant (PW 15) ran way from the spot and saw from a little distance that both the appellants assaulted the deceased indiscriminately by bhujali and talwar causing her death on the spot. Thereafter, F. I. R. was lodged at the police station. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Section 302/34, I. P. C.
3. The plea of the defence is complete denial of the allegation. From the manner of cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 and 15, it is revealed that the defence has tried to take the further plea that it was the informant who caused murder of the deceased with the aid and assistance of P.Ws. 2 and 3.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses including the doctors and the I. Os. The defence has examined only one witness on its behalf. P.W. 1 is the father of PW 15 (informant), P.W. 2 is post occurrence witness, P.W. 3 is the uncle of P.W. 2 and a post occurrence witness. P.W. 4 is a teacher of Duhel Govt. U. P. School, P.W. 5 is a seizure witness, P.Ws. 6 and 10 are hostile witnesses, P.Ws. 7 and 13 are the doctors, who examined the injured and proved the injury reports (Exts. 3 and 10), P.W. 8 is the Medical Officer of Jamgaon P. H. C, who proved that the deceased has worked as an A. N. M. (Female Health Worker) at Daspur A. N. M. Centre and stated that on the date of occurrence, she had health programme at Duhel School, P.W. 9 is the Scientific Officer. SFSL. Rasulgarh, P.W. 11 is the Havildar and a witness to the inquest, P.W. 12 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries:
(a) Incised wound 3' x 1' x 2' on right side of neck.
(b) Incised wound 5' x 2' x 2' below injury No. 1.
(c) Incised wound 2' x 1/2 x bone deep on right frontal area.
(d) Incised wound 2' x 1' x 1' on left fore arm.
(e) Incised wound 4' x 2' x 1/2 on right fore arm.
(f) Incised wound 4' x 1' x 1/2 on right arm.
(g) Two incised wounds on right side of the back;
(h) Incised wounds on both palms.
He opined that the cause of death was due to profuse haemorrhage and shock following the injury to the large vessels of the neck. He further opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by the sharp cutting weapons. P.W. 13 is the doctor, who admitted the informant as an indoor patient in the District Headquarter Hospital, Bolangir, P.W. 14 is the I. O., P.W. 15 is the injured informant, who lodged F. I. R. and P.W. 16 is the I. O., who investigated into the matter and ultimately filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C.
5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellants assails the judgment on the following grounds:
(a) There is absolutely no material against the present appellants. There was illicit relationship between the informant (PW 15) and the deceased. It is the informant who had killed the deceased and foisted a false case against the present appellants.
(b) P.W. 15 is not an eye witness. At the time of occurrence he ran away from the spot. So, he could not have seen the occurrence and, therefore, his evidence cannot be believed.
(c) P.Ws. 1 to 3 are interested witnesses.
6. Learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants on the ground that there is direct material against the present appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 34, I. P. C. The evidence of the informant (P. W. 15), who is an eye witness and was also injured in course of the occurrence, is sufficient to convict them. On previous occasions also, they misbehaved the deceased and P.W. 15 protested. Against P.W. 15, appellant No. 1-Bibhisan had lodged F. I. R. Both the appellant's had threatened the deceased with dire consequence. The evidence of P.W. is very clear and cogent. Nothing has been elicited by the defence from his cross-examination. The manner in which the deceased was assaulted depicts a horrendous scenario. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction.
7. Perused the LCR. After scrutinising the evidence it is established that the deceased was posted at Daspur A. N. M. Centre. P.W. 8-Dr. Sahadev Sahu stated that he was posted at Jamgaon P. H. C. on the relevant date. He stated that the Daspur A.N.M. Centre comes within the jurisdiction of Jamgaon P.H.C. and the deceased had been working as an A. N. M. at Daspur Centre. It is revealed from the evidence of P.W. 15 that he had accompanied the deceased to the Duhel School. P.Ws. 1 to 3 corroborated the statement of P.W. 15 in this regard. They were the nearest neighbours of the deceased. They deposed that on the date of occurrence the deceased had been to Duhel School by a cycle in connection with the official work. P.W. 15 carried the deceased in the cycle. P.W. 4 is a teacher of the said School. He stated that on the date of occurrence the deceased had gone to the said school in connection with the health programme. It reveals from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 15 that in the month of Phalgun of the year 1996 i.e., March, 1996 the appellants had entered into the quarters of the deceased and misbehaved with her younger sisters. When P.W. 15 arrived and protested, appellant-Tikechan threatened to kill him and the deceased. During that occurrence, P.W. 15 had assaulted appellant-Tikechan for which appellant-Bibhisan had lodged a report against P.W. 15. Though appellant No. 1 in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. stated that he had not lodged any report against P.W. 15, P.W. 14. the A. S. I. of Sadar Police Station, stated that he had registered the case and investigated into the matter. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, 14 and 15 makes it clear that there was a previous incident invoking misbehaviour by the two appellants with the sisters of the deceased and threats were given by the appellants to take away the lives of the deceased and P.W. 15. It is also established by P.W. 15 that on the date of occurrence he had accompanied the deceased and received the injury in course of the occurrence. P.W. 15 in his evidence stated that while he and the deceased were returning by cycle from Duhel School on the date of occurrence at about 2.00 p.m., near a Chhak of Duhel-Kutenpali road, appellant-Bibhisan, who was armed with a bhujali. caught hold of the handle of the cycle and both of them got down. Appellant-Bibhisan gave a blow by the bhujali on the neck of the deceased. He also gave 2 to 3 more blows. At that time appellant-Tikechan came running to the spot being armed with a talwar and dealt a blow aiming at the head of P.W. 15. As P.W. 15 raised his hand in order to ward off the blow, the talwar hit his right palm. As a result, he sustained a serious caught bleeding injury. Appellant-Tikechan also assaulted the deceased by means of the talwar. Thereafter, in order to save his life, he ran away towards village-Bilaikani and from a little distance of about 50 meters, he saw that both the appellants were assaulting the deceased by their respective weapons. After reaching village Bilaikani, he became unconscious. Some time later, he regained his senses while he was being taken to the District Head Quarters Hospital. Bolangir. At the hospital, the police arrived and there he stated about the occurrence orally to P.W. 16 who reduced the same to writing. The report is marked as Ext. 11 and the enforcement and signature of P.W. 16, marked as Ext. 11/1. It was read over and explained to him and finding the same to be correct, he put his LTI in the said report. P.W. 7 is the doctor, who treated P.W. 15 and found incised wound of 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep at the middle of the wound with tapering ends. There is no suggestion that P.W. 15 fell down on any sharp cutting weapon and received the injury. From cross-examination of P.W. 7 also nothing has been elicited by the defence to discard his evidence. He specifically stated that the injury could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon.
8. The evidence of P.W. 15 that the appellants gave several blows to the deceased and one blow to him finds ample corroboration from the medical evidence. There is no material on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
L. Mohapatra, J.
9. I agree.