KUMAR BIBHAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 52/37 of 1999 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.) P.W. 3 lodged the F.I.R. in Rampur P.S. on 2.3.1999 alleging therein that his sister Jasoda Bibhar had got married to the appellant on 24.2.1999. On 28.2.1999 P.W.4 came to the house of the elder father of the deceased Jasoda at Chandli and informed that Jasoda and the appellant were in critical condition and were being treated at Pandkital by Dr. Chudamani Meher. After getting this news, relations and villagers of the deceased Jasoda proceeded to the clinic of Dr. Meher and learnt that while the condition of the appellant was stable, condition of the deceased was very serious. Dr. Meher referred the appellant and the deceased to a private clinic run by Dr. Mund P.W.6 for better treatment. After hearing that the deceased and the appellant had been shifted to the clinic of Dr. Mund P.W.6, all of them went to Barpali to meet the deceased. At the time of treatment the deceased was in an unconscious stage and the appellant seeing them fled away from the clinic of Dr. Mund. It is further alleged that on 1.3.1999 the deceased regained her sense and being asked P.W.7 she stated that she was having headache on 28.2.1999 and requested the appellant to get some medicine. The appellant brought medicine in a tin daba and poured it in a steel pot and told her to swallow the same. When the deceased was reluctant to swallow it the appellant took a little quantity of the said medicine and poured the rest in her mouth. Thereafter, he disclosed that they had taken poison. Next day i.e. on 2.3.1999 the deceased died in the clinic of Dr. Mund P.W.6 and F.I.R. was lodged on the very same day at about 6.30 P.M. On the basis of the F.I.R., a case was registered for commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet was also submitted for commission of the said offence.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined nine witnesses where as the defence examined two witnesses. The plea of defence is false implication.