Back
P.K.TRIPATHY, N.PRUSTY
Tuna Prusty – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
Key Points: - The judge notes that the trial Court did not record a finding that the death was homicidal, despite evidence suggesting head injury may be ante mortem but with reasonable doubt (PW13’s opinion) [5000203740004][5000203740005]. - PW13 stated that a 5 kg stone could not have been thrown 25 feet to cause the head injury, and that head injury could also occur if the person fell while running; defense theory not improbable, undermining the homicidal death conclusion [5000203740006][5000203740007]. - The appellate court acquitted the appellant, holding that prosecution failed to prove homicidal death given conflicting evidence and the fall theory, and granted benefit of doubt, setting aside conviction under Section 302 IPC [5000203740008][5000203740009]. - The appeal itself was allowed; the reasoning centers on whether the injuries could be homicidal versus accidental, and whether the eye-witnesses alone suffice given the expert’s doubts (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Prosecution relied on eye-witnesses (PW1, PW4, PW5) and physical MOIs (stone MOI, brick MOII) to prove murder, but the doctor’s contrary findings weakened the case for homicidal death [5000203740004][5000203740006]. - The defense argued deceased came to house, assaulted accused, and fell, causing injury; this theory gained weight due to PW13’s opinion [5000203740004][5000203740007]. - The court emphasizes the need for clear homicide finding to sustain a murder conviction; failure to record it leads to acquittal even if other evidence supports the act [5000203740005][5000203740009].
JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.—Appellant Tuna Prusty and his father Kunja Bihari Prusty faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 355(1) of 2000-2001 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh on the allegations that on 25.4.2000 at about 1.00p.m., they shared the common intention to kill Benudhar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). In course of trial, because of absence of sufficient evidence to connect accused Kunja Bihari Prusty with the crime, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge. At the same time on assessment of evidence on record, he found that prosecution has proved charge of murder against the accused appellant Tuna Prusty. Accordingly, he convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. In this appeal, the appellant challenges that order of conviction pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17.7.2001.
2. Prosecution case is that accused Kunja Bihari Prusty and the deceased are co-brothers-in-law. Accused Tuna Prusty is son of accused Kunja, whereas Moochi Sahu (PW6) is the son of the deceased. Tuna and Moochi, the cousins were good friends. On the assumption of the deceased and his
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
