DIPU @ DEEPAK KU SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T.Case No.88 of 2000 convicting him for commission of offence under Sections 302, 436 & 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.200/ - for conviction under Section 436 IPC, imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.200/ - for conviction under Section 449 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that Binod Pradhan is father of the deceased and he was a rickshaw puller by profession. He was living in an one roomed hut in Gouri Nagar area along with his wife Sabitri -P.W.2, the deceased -P.W.18, minor son Dipu - P.W.1 and minor daughter, namely, Gouri. The appellant was running a cycle repairing shop in the same area where the deceased and his family members were residing. Since the appellant and the deceased developed love affairs, the deceased was given marriage to one Muna Naik, a rickshaw puller by profession and after marriage, the said Muna Naik was living with the deceased in the house of the deceased. The appellant having failed to marry the deceased, drove away the husband of the deceased from Gouri Nagar area, for which there was quarrel between Binod, Sabitri -P.W.2 and the appellant. Binod started pulling rickshaw in Puri Town for a living and left his wifeP.W.2 -Sabitri and other two children in the Gouri Nagar hut. In the evening of 15.2.1999, when P.W.2 was absent at home, the appellant went to the house of Binod and asked the deceased to accompany him. When the deceased refused to go with the appellant, it is alleged that the appellant drenched the deceased with kerosene kept in the hut and set her ablaze by lightening a match stick. The deceased along with her younger brother -P.W.1 and sister Gouri ran out of the hut but in the process, the hut caught fire. The deceased went to a nearby tap and rolled on the sand and water in an attempt to extinguish fire. The appellant after setting her ablaze left the place. The Asst. Fire Officer, Bhubaneswar after receiving a telephone call from a unknown person rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the capital hospital. P.W.2 came to the house only after the deceased was shifted to hospital andlearnt about the occurrence from P.W.1. Thereafter, she immediately went to the hospital and found the deceased lying on the bed in a semiconscious state. The S.I. of police of Lingraj Police Station also arrived at the hospital and P.W.2 orally reported the incident to him. The said information was treated as an F.I.R. and a case was registered for commission of offence under Sections 436 and 307 IPC. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 20.3.1999 while under treatment. Accordingly, the case registered for commission of offence under Sections 449, 302 and 436 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was also submitted for commission of the aforesaid offence. The plea of defence is complete denial of the prosecution case.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove the charges examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased and witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the informant and mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is a Surgical Specialist, who had admitted the deceased on 15.2.1999. P.W.4 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and P.W.5 is the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Assistant Fire Officer and P.W.7 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. P.W.8 is the I.O.