PITABAS DALEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.09.1997 in S.T. Case No. 294 -21 of 1996 passed by Sri N.N. Praharaj, Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur while convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that one Kartika Das (P.W.11) who happens to be the paternal uncle of the deceased Gunamani reported at Jenapur Out Post on 29.01.1996 at 7.30 P.M. about the death of his nephew Gunamani. Since the cause of death was not known, Jenapur Out Post U.D. Case No. 1 of 1996 was registered and enquiry was taken up. During enquiry, the A.S.I. of Police attached to Jenapur Out Post Sri J.N. Pattasani (P.W.14) visited the spot on 30.01.1996 morning. During spot visit and on holding the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he detected swelling on the face, bleeding from mouth and nostril etc. and he also found pesticides (DANADAR) weighing about 400 grams, glass pieces of one broken liquor bottle, one love letter purportedly written by the deceased addressed to her beloved Banyarani Dalai lying near the dead body. The dead body of the deceased was found lying near a hillock locally known as 'BADAPAHAD' near 'Suhagi Math' which situate to the south of the village street of Baulamala. During enquiry it was ascertained that the deceased was prosecuting his studies in Pingua College, Dhenkanal and was putting up in a mess and had developed love intimacy with Banyarani, who was aged about 15 years then. The said Banyarani happens to be the daughter of the present Appellant. The deceased and Banyarani were corresponding with each other by addressing love letters at intervals. During enquiry eight love letters written by Banyarani addressed to the deceased were recovered. Similarly, four numbers of love letters addressed to Banyarani by the deceased were also recovered from Banyarani which were indicative of the fact that since their love intimacy was not to the liking of their parent and relations they had expressed their desire to part with each other. It also came to light that the present Appellant who is father of the Banyarani had cautioned the father of the deceased to prevail upon the deceased from having any intimacy with his daughter. It is further revealed that the deceased along with his friend Suresh Kumar Behera (P.W.7) had come to village Boulamala from Pingua around 4.00 P.M. on 27.01.1996 and the deceased left his house around 6.30 P.M. leaving information with his cousin Dinabandhu Das (P.W.3) that he was going to the house of the Appellant. When the father of the deceased Chaitanya Das (P.W.1) arrived in his house that day around 7.00 P.M. could come to know about the arrival of his son and also further on coming to know that his son had not returned to the house, he proceeded to the house of the Appellant in search of his son and met the Appellant around 7.30 to 8.00 P.M. and enquired about Gunamani and the Appellant informed P.W.1 that Gunamani had already left for Pingua. During enquiry it also came to light that the deceased was seen going to the house of the Appellant by one Narayan Dehury and the villagers namely, Malati Samal, Sakhi Dei, Basanti Das and they had seen Gunamani near the house of Pitabas while watching T.V. programme. On 28.1.1996 afternoon, cow heard boys reported about a person lying near the hillock whom they thought to be a drunkard. On 29.1.1996 morning Kailash Samal informed the local Gramarakhi, Baghuti Malik about the lying of a person near the hillock and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was identified to that of Gunamani. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem report showed existence of different antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased and the doctor opined that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one and could have been caused by mugging and pressure on the chest and forcible closure of mouth and nostril after overpowering the deceased by two or more persons. Thus, when all such materials could be collected during enquiry of the U.D. Case and prima -facie it appeared to be a case of murder pointing to the involvement of the Appellant, the case was turned to that of a murder and accordingly Dharmasala P.S. Case No. 38 of 1996 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was placed against the Appellant to stand his trial.

(3.) TO substantiate its case the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses in all and of them, P.W.4 was the Gramarakhi who had first reported the matter at Jenapur Police Out Post and he was also one witness to the inquest which was held over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 is the uncle of the deceased who had lodged report about the discovery of the dead body of Gunamani near the hillock. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P. Ws. 2, 3, 5, 9 and 12 are the independent witnesses for the prosecution to speak that the deceased had gone to the house of the Appellant on the evening of 27.1.1996 and about the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from near a hillock on 29.1.1996. P.W.6 is a witness to the inquest which was held over the dead body of the deceased by the police. P.W.8 is the doctor attached to Danagadi U.P.H.C., who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased on 30.1.1996 and he was also the doctor, who on Police requisition had examined the person of the present Appellant on 11.2.1996 and could detect 8 abrasions on different parts of his body. P.W.9 is a witness who speaks about the arrival of the deceased Gunamani along with his friend Suresh Chandra Behera in the house of P.W.1. P. Ws.10, 14 and 15 are the three I.Os.