(1.) These two appeals, one by the accused and the other by the State, have common matrix. The heart-rending factual scenario as unfolded is a sad-reflection of the present day decadent and permissive society. Young life of a teen-aged girl full of potentialities has been lost, and another young brilliant student's future is in jeopardy because he is the accused. Background facts as depicted by the prosecution are tragic to the core.
(2.) Accused, a brilliant student, recipient of National Merit Scholarship, was friendly with Amarendra Sahu (P.W. 1), brother of the deceased Nirupama. At the request of the family members of the deceased, the accused started giving her tuition. The platonic relationship of a teacher and a student did not remain so far long, and the relationship blossomed into a love affair. There was parental objection and tutorship was withdrawn. The accused objected, did not take it in good spirit, and threatened the deceased as well as the family members with dire consequences. On the fateful day, i.e., 24-8-1989, the deceased had gone to a friend's house, while the accused was watching her movements from a nearby place. The father of the deceased on learning that the deceased had gone to the house of a friend named Lopamudra, sent Surendra Mohanty (P.W. 6) to bring her back as he had noticed that the accused was sitting near Lopamudra's house P. W. 6 brought back the deceased in his cycle from Lopamudra's house which is at a distance of 200 metres from house of the deceased. In the afternoon, when the deceased and her younger sister Kiranbala had gone near the tank known as Sanketpokhari to attend the call of nature the accused who was waiting in the house of one Jhumpa Dei (P. W. 3) came out and accosted the deceased and intended to talk to her. On the deceased not responding, he suddenly brought out a Dhujaii and inflicted indiscriminate blows on several parts of her body. This macabre act was witnessed by Kiranbala (P.W. 5) and Jhumpa Dei (P.W. 3). On hearing the cries of Kiranbala, who ran towards the house, several witnesses, viz; Amarendra (P.W. 1), Abhiram Sahu (P.W. 2), Surendra (P.W. 6), Rabindranath (P.W. 7) and some others rushed towards the spot. They found the accused trying to run away, and when they tried to catch him, he brandished the weapon he was holding saying that he will finish everybody. Thereafter he escaped from the spot in the cycle of one Niranjan Ojha, a co-accused, whose appeal we shall separately deal with. In a very unstable stage, the deceased was removed to Jagatsinghpur Sub- divisional Hospital where the doctor attended to her immediately, tried to render all possible medical help and finding that the deceased, was sinking physically referred the matter to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. The doctor (P.W. 8) also recorded a dying declaration (Ext. 7) wherein the deceased clearly named the accused to be the assailant. In the injury report (Ext. 5), mention was made about this dying declaration. The doctors of the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital also tried their best to save the injured; but in spite of their best efforts Nirupama breathed her last on 2-9-1989. The inquest report is Ext. 2. From the injury report and the inquest report it appears that 23 injuries both external and internal existed on several parts of the body, the vital and vulnerable ones being the throat, chest, abdomen and face. The doctor have opined that the injuries were possible by a sharp cutting weapon like a Bhujali. In additon to the witnesses indicated above, several other witnesses including official witnesses, and witnesses who stated to have witnessed seizure of some material objects, to further the prosecution case were examined.
(3.) The accused in his defence stated that being born in a poor family, he continued his study with great difficulty and notwithstanding financial handicaps was keen in his studies. But acute poverty stood in his way for prosecution of further studies, and he had to seek a job and in fact had been selected for appointment as a Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier in a bank having come out successful with flying colours in Banking Services Recruitment Examination; and because of pendency of the case he has not been able to join. His plea is one of false implication. It was suggested that the deceased was deeply in love with him and the parents objected to the relationship and confined her against will, with the tacit encouragement of P.W. 6 Surendra. With a view to malign him, the false implication as aforesaid has been made.