RABI MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') for committing murder of his wife -Bilanga Majhi and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No.238 of 1997.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that prior to the occurrence, the appellant was picking up quarrel with the deceased and was assaulting her On 17.7.1937 morning, P.W.6 was going to bring water from a tube -well and heard some unusual sound coming from the house of the appellant. She informed about the same to Khedu Majhi, P.W.12, who is father of the deceased. The daughter of the appellant and the deceased namely, Sanjita Majhi P.W.5, had stayed in the house of her uncle in the previous night and had gone to the house of appellant in the morning. She found the door closed and peeped through the window. She saw her mother lying dead. Accordingly, she also informed P.W.12 about the said fact. Thereafter, P W.12, the informant, along with others went to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead with cut injuries on her neck and head. They also found the appellant lying in an unconscious state with an aluminium wire around his neck. Thereafter, P.W.2, who is brother of the deceased, lodged the FIR. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was taken up and ultimately charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that door of the house in which both of the appellant and deceased were sleeping was open and had not been closed from inside. There was nobody else in the house exc8f.H the appellant and deceased. By the time the witnesses got information about death of the deceased and went to the house of the appellant it not only the deceased was found lying dead but also the appellant ill a unconscious state with an aluminium wire around his neck. It was therefore contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plea of defence that two unknown persons entered into the house in the night, committed the murder of the deceased and also attempted to commit murder of the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the circumstances proved by the prosecution as held by the Trial Court do not conclusively point at the guilty of the appellant and when a different view can be taken, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant. Learned counsel for the State relied on the evidence of post occurrence witnesses and the medical evidence to support the findings arrived at by the Trial Court.