RAMA CHANDRA GAUDO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2001(S.C. 145/01 of S.J.) convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the deceased Sanbari Gaudo is the wife of the appellant. They got married about 11 years prior to the occurrence. The appellant suspected the character of the deceased and was mentally upset. It is alleged by the prosecution that in the night of 8/9.11.2000 at about 1 A.M. while the deceased was sleeping, the appellant took out an axe and assaulted on the neck of the deceased causing severe cut injury resulting in instantaneous death. The mother of the appellant P.W.3 was sleeping in the next room. On hearing some unusual sound, she woke up and saw the deceased lying dead and the appellant going away from the house. She immediately raised hullah, hearing which, P.W.6 and some other villagers who were guarding the paddy fields, rushed to the house of the appellant. They caught hold of the appellant on the way and brought him to his house. P.W.2 and two other villagers went to the house of the Ward Member P.W.1 and informed him about the incident. P.W.1 thereafter accompanied the villagers, and came to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. They also noticed a cut injury on her neck and also noticed an axe lying on the floor by the side of the dead body of the deceased. There were stains of blood on the wall. In presence of the co -villagers, the appellant on being questioned, confessed his guilt and told to have killed her wife by means of the said axe. Thereafter, P.W.1 Ward Member detained the appellant near his house and next day morning he lodged the F.I.R. On the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. the case was registered and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined as many as eleven witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the defence. The plea of the defence as it appears from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is denial of the prosecution allegation. Out of the eleven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was the Ward Member at the relevant time and also the informant. He is also a witness to seizure under Exts. 2 and 3. P.W.2 is a post occurrence witness. P.W.3 is the mother of the appellant and P.W.4 is the father of the appellant. P.W.5 is the paternal uncle of the appellant. P.W.6 is another post occurrence witness and P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination. P.Ws. 8 and 11 are witnesses to the inquest and P.W.9 is a witness to seizure under Ext.7. P.W.10 is the I.O. Out of the eleven witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 stated about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant in presence of the villagers. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the charge considering the following circumstances: