SHYAMA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this Jail Criminal Appeal has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2000 for commission of offence under Sections 302, 498 -A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302 IPC, three years imprisonment for his conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and five years imprisonment for his conviction under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution as revealed from the F.I.R. and the evidence adduced in course of trial is that marriage between the appellant and deceased -Nirmal Sahu took place about ten years prior to the date of incident. They were blessed with three children out of whom two are sons, namely, Babuna and Kabula and third is the daughter namely Mana (deceased). The appellant was residing with his wife namely, Nirmala (deceased), son Babuna (P.W.8) and only daughter -Mana (deceased) in a hut near the temple of Goddess Batamangala at Kharvelanagar in the city of Bhubaneswar. The other son Kabula was residing with P.W. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was often assaultinghis wife deceased -Nirmala in order to coerce her father to meet his illegal demand for money. In the night of 19/20.1.1999, the appellant strangulated his wife deceased Nirmala by throttling her neck and caused death of his minor daughter deceased Mana by means of stone grinder and in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he lodged a false information at Kharavelanagar Police Station at 1 A.M. on 21.1.1999 stating therein that his wife Nirmala and daughter Mana committed suicide by taking poison. On basis of such report, U.D. Case No.2 of 1999 was registered and inquiry was conducted From the postmortem report, it revealed that both the deceased persons died a homicidal death and on the basis of inquiry report submitted in the U.D. case, the case was registered for commission of offence under Section 302 and 498 -A of IPC and investigation was taken up vide Kharvelnagar Police Station Case No.19 of 1999. Ultimately charge -sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302, 498 -A and 201 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that in absence of any direct eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution was required to prove the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the circumstances on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty did not actually point at the guilt of the appellant. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that even if both the deceased persons met homicidal death, there is nothing on record to connect the appellant with commission of the alleged offence and the learned Sessions Judge was swayed away by the conduct of the appellant in lodging the F.I.R. indicating therein that both the deceased persons committed suicide. Learned counsel for the State referred to the very same circumstance on which reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge to support the findings while convicting appellant for commission of the said offence.