LAWS(ORI)-2011-8-87

GOVINDA ROUTRAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 09, 2011
Govinda Routray Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302 of IPC and further sentenced to three years and fine of Rs. 500/- for his conviction under Sections 201 and 34 of IPC passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No.11/29/52 of 1998, has filed this appeal. As it appears from the record, the present appellant and his wife Smt. Bhabi Routray and one Antaryami Palei were charged for commission of offence under Sections 498-A/302/201 and 34 of IPC for subjecting their daughter-in-law, Ranju Routray to cruelty on allegation of demand of dowry, committing her murder and giving false information at the police station with an intent to screen themselves from legal punishment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that P.W.7-Guna Rautray is son of the present appellant. He had married the deceased for the second time as due to indecent behaviour of the appellant, his first wife fled away from their house. After the second marriage with the deceased, the appellant and his wife subjected the deceased to torture and the appellant also showed indecent behaviour to the deceased and compelled her to have sexual intercourse with him. Due to such behaviour of the appellant. P.W.7-Guna went away from the house with the deceased and was staying separately at village Godipada. Two to three months prior to death of the deceased, as the hand of the wife of the appellant was fractured, both the appellant and his wife persuaded Guna to leave the deceased in their house to look after his mother. Accordingly, the deceased was left in the house of the appellant. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1.12.1995 at about 1 P.M., the appellant informed Guna at his work place that the deceased had lost her sense. Accordingly, Guna came to house and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the bed room of the appellant and also noticed injuries. He therefore informed the incident to the police, on the basis of which, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) Prosecution in order to establish the charges examined 12 witnesses. So far as offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the A.S.I. of Police, Khurda Police Station, who had registered the case on the basis of information given by accused Antaryami Palei and conducted inquiry. P.W.2 acted as a Mediator in the marriage of Guna and the deceased. P.W.3 is a witness to seizure and P.W.4 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination. P.W.5 is Gramarakhi of village Tapang, who is a witness to seizure of some ornaments. P.W.6 is mother of the deceased, who has stated about the conduct of the appellant and P.W.7 is son of the appellant, who has also stated about the conduct of the appellant. P.W.8 is father of the first of Guna, who has also stated about the conduct of the appellant. P.W.9 is the I.O. and P.W.10 is a Constable, who had accompanied the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. P.Ws.11 and 12 are two other Investigating Officers. Non one was examined on behalf of defence and the appellant and other two accused persons pleaded not guilty. The appellant and his wife in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded ignorance about the cause of death of the deceased.