MURALI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant calls in question his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred as "I.P.C." for brevity, for committing murder of his wife in the night of 2.5.1996.

(2.) PROSECUTION alleges that the deceased Kalia Naik was given in marriage with appellant Muraili Naik. In the early morning of 2.5.1996, cousin of the informant came and reported about the murder of Kalia by throttling. On getting such information, the informant with her mother and aunt Ratani went to the house of the appellant at Kamasara ada and found dead body of the deceased Kalia lying in her bed room with several marks of injuries on her face and neck. It is further alleged by the prosecution that prior to her death, she was constantly subject to torture and was denied proper food and clothing. It is further alleged that she was compelled to do the field work of their own and in the fields of others, for which she was also assaulted several times by the accused persons, who happens to be husband and parents -in -law of the deceased. The informant, i.e., the brother of the deceased, lodged a report before the Officer -in -Charge, Baguda Police Station, who registered a case, took up investigation and after completion of the same, submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and his parents for the alleged offence under sections 498 -A and 302/34, I.P.C. On completion of trial, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons Dandasi alias Dandapani Naik and Saraswati Naik, who happens to be the parents -in -law of the deceased. The learned Trial Judge also found the present appellant not guilty of the offence under section 498 -A, I.P.C. but came to the conclusion that the appellant has committed an offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Such conviction has been assailed in this appeal.

(3.) IN course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty -one witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 13 -Rabi Naik, happens to be the informant, P.W, 5 is the mother of the deceased, P.W. 1 is father -in -law of the informant, P.W. 2 Simanchal Naik happens to be the cousin of the deceased, P.W. 4 is the widowed sister of P.W. 2, who happens to be staying near the house of the deceased. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are eye -witnesses to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased, P.W. 8, 15, 16 and 17 are the co -villagers of the appellant, whereas P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the co -villagers of the informant. P.W. 9 Niranjan Duary belongs to village -Kadua, who informed about the death to the mother of the deceased. P.W. 14 is the maternal uncle of the deceased, P.W. 12 is the co -villager of P.W. 14. The remaining witnesses are formal witnesses. P.Ws. 18 and 21 are doctors, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and P.W. 19 is the Investigating Officer in this case . P.W. 20 happens to be the Magistrate, in whose presence the inquest was conducted.