LAWS(ORI)-2011-12-11

ABANI ROUT @ BANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On December 19, 2011
Abani Rout @ Bani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No.14 -A of 1995 (17 of 1998) convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE appellant along with one Srimati Rout faced trial for commission of offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. The co -accused Srimati Rout was acquitted of the charge and the appellant was convicted for commission of the aforesaid offence. Co -accused Srimati Rout is the wife of the deceased. The appellant is cousin brother of the deceased. The appellant and co -accused Srimati had love affair for which the deceased had convened a meeting in the village. It appears from the F.I.R. and evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that the matter could not be settled in the village meeting and the deceased had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint. The police intervened and brought out a compromise. It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was being threatened to be killed by the appellant in relation to the above issue. On 14.10.1994 when a village meeting was going on P.W.9, the brother of the appellant was informed by the co -accused Srimati that the appellant had killed the deceased. P.W.9 saw the deceased lying dead and thereafter went to the village meeting and disclosed about the incident before the villagers. The villagers called the Gramarakhi and thereafter all of them went to the spot. They saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood and an axe was lying near him. The appellant was absent from the village. P.W.1 gave an oral report on the next day, and such oral report was reduced into writing and the case was registered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co -accused for commission of offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

(3.) MISS Sonita Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in absence of any direct evidence, the prosecution is required to prove a chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellant. Since the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstance, the appellant cannot be convicted for commission of the alleged offence. According to Miss. Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant, the only evidence available against the appellant is previous enmity. No other circumstance relied on by the prosecution has been proved legally and therefore, the trial Court could not have relied on those circumstances.