LOKANATH SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 9/24 of 1993 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh prosecuted under Sections 302/201/498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') has assailed the order of conviction and sentence directing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows : Appellant Lokanath Sahu had married the deceased Kausalya in the year 1989. Out of their union of male and a female child were born to them of whom the female child aged about one year could not survive. Thus they were left with a male child about 3/4 years at the time of fateful incident. For some time they led a happy married life, but thereafter their relationship did not continue well. There was more often than not rancor and ill feeling between them on account of non fulfilment of the dowry demand by the appellant. From the prosecution story presented during trial, it further demonstrated that the deceased Kausalya was found to be remorse and dull on account of embittered relationship. It is stated by the prosecution during trial that the appellant was in search of an opportune moment to exterminate the deceased Kausalya and accordingly he chose the date 18.8.92 to take her to Padampur along with their 3 years old son Shivaji on the pretext of his treatment in the Subdivisional Hospital. On the fateful day there was unabated rain and accordingly he also chose an isolated place at Khaira Dunguri hillock to commit the crime of murder of his wife. Her head was crushed by a stone and her deadbody was thrown into the rain water discharged drain by the side of the road of the hillock after removing her jewellery. The appellant circulated a canard that his wife was brutally killed by the dacoits, who also took her jewellery and snatched away Rs. 500/ from him. The father of the accused lodged an information on the next day, i.e. 19.8.92 at 11.30 A.M. by stating that few persons who were inimically disposed against the appellant had killed deceased Kausalya. During investigation it unmasked as to who was the real murderer. After examining the father and brother of the deceased the real picture came into being.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contention of the appellant it has to be first of all ascertained whether the deceased Kausalya met a homicidal or natural death. Since the appellant has admitted that kausalya met a homicidal death, therefore, further dilation on this point appears to be academic. But, however, to arrive at such a conclusion the evidence of P.W. 7, who was the specialist in Surgery posted at Subdivisional Hospital at Sambalpur and conducted autopsy over the deadbody on 20.8.1992 is very significant. He found the following injuries :