RAMA KRUSHNA ROY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sole appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal by special leave.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the deceased Santilata was the wife of the appellant and married about a year prior to the date of occurrence and they were residing in a portion of the house belonging to PW-1, M. Appa Rao. A day prior to the lodging of the report i.e. 30th of June, 1994 the deceased along with her husband i.e. appellant herein came together, went in their house and closed the door. After some time, the landlord, PW-1 M. Appa Rao heard screams of the deceased whereupon he went to the portion of the house in which the appellant and his wife were residing and knocked the door. According to the prosecution, appellant opened the door and when M.Appa Rao entered the room, he found Santilata in a severely burnt condition covered with a bed-sheet. The appellant came out of the house and fled away. M.Appa Rao brought Santilata to the hospital on a trolley-rickshaw and on being asked Santilata disclosed that it is the appellant who poured kerosene oil on her and lighted the match- stick with a view to kill her. PW-1, M.Appa Rao gave the report of the incident at Jeypur Town Police Station on 30th of June, 1994 at about 12 Noon. On the death of Santilata on 1st of July, 1994, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The deceased was taken to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jeypore where his statement was recorded by the attending Assistant Surgeon PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi.

(3.) Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet and the appellant was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions where he was charged for committing the offence under Section 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined altogether 23 witnesses besides a large number of documentary evidence including the dying declaration of the deceased were exhibited. Three witnesses were also examined on behalf of the appellant which included the appellant himself as DW-2. From the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the defence witnesses, the plea of the appellant seems to be that the deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit 18) came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellant as above. Said conviction and sentence has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.