LACHMAN GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and R.I. for two years for offence under Section 201, I.P.C., both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the deceased was the wife of the appellant. In the night of 11.3.1977 there was a quarrel between the two and the appellant dealt a blow with a Tangia on the back of the head of the deceased which resulted in her death. On the following morning the appellant sent information to his father -in -law PW 3 that his wife died of colic pain. PW 3 along with his relations came to the village of the appellant. The dead body of the deceased was buried on 13.3.1977 by those persons. The appellant had a son and a daughter. His son was living with PW 3 whereas the daughter was living with the appellant. PW 3 went back to the village along with the daughter (PW 7) aged about six years. In the night, during meal time, PW 7 told PW 3 that the appellant caused the death of her mother by dealing a blow with an axe. PW 3 thereafter came down to the village of the appellant and informed the panchayat member PW 5 about the occurrence. Both of them went to the appellant and confronted the statement of PW 7. The appellant admitted before them that as the deceased abused him he assaulted her with the butt end of a Tangia on the back of her neck and she died as a result of the assault. He further stated that as nobody had seen the occurrence he concealed the fact of assault and intimated the relations that the deceased died of colic pain. The matter was reported to the Sarpanch PW 6 who along with the ex -MLA, came down to the village of the appellant and held a panchayat. The appellant admitted before them that he had killed his wife and falsely gave out that she died of colic pain. The matter was reported to the police through PW 3. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted for offence under Section 302 Penal Code. The appellant denies to have caused the death of his wife. He further states that PW 7 was tutored by PW 3 to tell lies. He never made any confessional statement. The Sarpanch and the villagers threatened to assault him and he was forced to say under threat.

(3.) THE doctor who examined the deceased found injuries on the backside of the head. He also found that there was rupture of the spleen. He has stated at one stage that the death was due to haemorrhage inside the head and in another stage he has stated that he cannot definitely say if the death was due to the rupture of the spleen. The prosecution case all along is that the appellant dealt a Tangia blow on the backside of the head of the deceased, but there is no material on record to show that there was any assault on the abdomen of the deceased or that the deceased fell down in such a position that the abdomen would have struck against any hard substance. Therefore, the doctor's evidence is not beyond doubtful circumstances as regards death of the deceased.