BUDU HONTAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the judgment and order dated 11.07.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1994 (S.C. No. 297/94 of Sessions Judge, Jeypore), convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that 6 to 7 days preceding the date of incident, the appellant's wife had gone to her father's house as the appellant was quarreling with her frequently. As such, the appellant was staying in his house with his three children. In the night of 25/26.05.1994, he slept in the house along with his children after bolting the door from inside. At about 3.00 A.M., Ramachandra Hontal (P.W.3), the son of the appellant, heard some noise which aroused him from the sleep. He noticed that the appellant stabbed knife blows on the neck of his sister Lalita (daughter of the appellant) which caused her instantaneous death. At about dawn time, P.W.3 and his grandmother Sambari Hontal (P.W.6) informed the other villagers that the appellant had killed his own daughter by stabbing on her neck by means of a knife in the previous night. The knife had been snatched away by P.W.3 and kept in the corner of the room near the dead body. Hearing this, many villagers including Madan Pujari, Bhaskar Rao, and Sunadhar Sisa gathered near the house of the appellant. At the time the villagers gathered, the appellant was present in his house. On query to the appellant, he admitted to have killed his daughter by means of a knife as there was quarrel during the previous night. So, the villagers detained the appellant in the village and some of them namely, Damburu Naik and Basudeb Patra, went to Semiliguda P.S. The incident was orally explained to the officer in charge of Semiliguda P.S., who reduced the same to writing and treated it as F.I.R. (Ext. 1). Immediately after such F.I.R. was registered, the O.I.C. sprang into action. He arrested the appellant, sent the dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination, examined witnesses and seized the knife (M.O.I.). After completion of investigation. the investigating officer placed charge sheet in Court.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. P.W.3 is the minor son of the appellant, who claims to be an eye witness. P.W.6 is the mother of the appellant before whom, P.W.3 is alleged to have disclosed the incident in the early morning. P.Ws. l, 2 and 4 are the co villagers before whom the appellant is stated to have made extra judicial confession. P.W.5 is a witness to the seizure. P.W.7 is the constable who accompanied the dead body to the Community Health Centre for post mortem examination. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. P.Ws.8 and 10 are the investigating officers.