BUDHIA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POVERTY in a triabal household in the village of Upardiha in the district of Balasore consisting of the appellant, his deceased father -in -law Gopinath Singh, whom the appellant allegedly murdered Bela Dei (P. W. 6) and Jema Dei (P.W. 1), the wife and mother -in -law respectively of the appellant, all of whom had been serving on daily wages to feed their bellies, led to the unfortunate incident of the appellant killing his father -in -law in the night of the 5th -6th Nov. 1977 after he was driven away by the deceased from his house by being called a dog as the appellant did not part with four Gaunis of paddy which were due to be paid to him and had been brought by his mother -in -law (P.W. 1) from Gajendra Narayan Mishra (P. W. 2) under whom the appellant had been serving as the family had no food to eat and the appellant sold this paddy away to Nanda Kishore Das (P. W. 8) without sparing it for the household, and being enraged on his being called a dog, it was alleged, the appellant came armed with his knife (M. O. IV) and while his wife (P.W. 6) was sleeping in the only room of the house and the deceased with P. W. 1 and some children was sleeping on the outer verandah and P. W. 1 had temporarity gone to ease herself, the appellant stabbed the deceased on his chest and left the place. The appellant was seen in the process of running away from the place of occurrence by his mother -in -law (P. W. 1) and Shyam Sunder Singh (P.W. 5), nephew and neighbour of the deceased. P. W. 6, the wife of the appellant, was informed by P. W. 1 about the occurrence and so, too, were the co -villagers, namely, Kulamani Mishra (P. W. 3). Surendra Patra (P. W. 4). Baidhar Sahu (P. W. 7) and Hadibandhu Sahu (P. W. 9) who came to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead with the blade portion of the knife inside his chest and its handle portion sticking to the chest. The first information report (Ext.10) was lodged by P. W. 1 at 5.00 a.m. on November 6, 1977 and investigation followed in the course of which inquest was held and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. K.C. Panigrahi (P. W. 11) as per Ext. 8, the post mortem report and it was he who had taken out the knife (M. O. IV) from the person of the deceased which was seized by the Investigating Officer as per Ext. 9, the seizure list. The witnesses were examined, the appellant was arrested and while in custody, his statement led to the discovery of a Gamucha (napkin), identified as M. O. I. during the trial, with stains of blood in it from inside a bush in the reserved forest to the west of village Godarasul and this napkin had been worn by the appellant, as the prosecution sought to show, at the time of the occurrence. The Scientific Officer (P. W. 10) of the District Forensic Science Laboratory had taken some photographs of the dead body with the knife sticking to the chest. On the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed and the appellant stood prosecuted being charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code with having committed murder by intentionally causing the death of the deceased to which he had pleaded not guilty and his case was one of denial and false implication with a suggestion that Shyam Sundar Singh (P. W. 5), who had opposed to the proposal of the marriage of the appellant with P. W. 6. had committed the murder of the deceased.

(2.) AT the trial, the prosecution had examined twelve witnesses to bring home the charge to the appellant who had not examined any witness in his defence. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the case against the appellant had been established on facts and that he had committed the offence of murder and accordingly for his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(3.) IT would be clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 that after her marriage with the appellant, P. W. 6 remained in the house of the father of the appellant for some days in village Ayodhya where owing to poverty, the father of the appellant was not even able to feed the member of the family and had been giving but one seer of rice per day for which P.W. 6 was ill -fed and she left the place and came to the house of her parents followed some time thereafter by the appellant and the appellant and his wife had been staying with the deceased and P. W. 1 feeding themselves on the wages earned by them as labourers. As would appear from the evidence, on the Thursday preceding the fateful night, there being no rice for cooking, P.W. 1 went to the house of P. W. 2 and brought four gounis of paddy due to be received by the appellant towards his wages, but the appellant would not allow this paddy to be used for feeding the family as he wanted to sell the same and for this, there had been a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. On the day following, i. e. on Friday, there was also a quarrel between the two for the same reason when the deceased told the appellant that he was like a dog and that he should leave the house and go away and at this, the appellant left the house and went away with a threat to the deceased that he would set him right. We see no justification for rejecting the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 6 in this regard. The deceased was the husband of P.W. 1 and the father of P. W. 6, but at the same time, the appellant is the son -in -law of P. W. 1 and the husband of P. W. 6 and they would not falsely implicate the appellant in such a grave crime by ascribing a motive which was not in existence.