HAREKRISHNA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, convicted under section 3 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the I.P.C.) assails legality of the ORDER of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

(2.) Factual backdrop as projected by the prosecution is to the following effect. Appellant Harekrishna and the deceased Debaki were in love. Since there was objection to their entering into wedlock, they were meeting secretly, and had also by exchange of garlands tied nuptial knot. The former filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Cr. P.C.) for maintenance, when differences between them surfaced. The matter was posted to 2.5.1984 and the deceased had come to Cuttack to tender evidence. She returned to the house of her mother (P.W. 1) where she was ordinarily residing. On 3.5.1984, the accused-appellant went to P.W. 1 s house late at night, knocked at the door and at his request the deceased accompanied him towards a pond situated at a distance of about 50 cubits from the house of PW.1. In the early hours of morning of the next day i.e. 4.5.1984, bebaki was discovered in unconscious stage and was removed to Bentkar P.H.C. where she was declared dead by the attending Doctor (P.W. 8). Visit of accused was noticed by Ramij Dei (PW. 2) the sister-in-law of the deceased. The Medical officer of Benkar P.R.C. reported the incident to the Police Authorities. P.W. 9 who was then posted as A.S.I. of Police enquired into the matter under the direction of the Officer-in-charge of Cuttack Sadar P.S. (PW.10) P.W. 9 held the inquest over the dead body and sent it to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital for Post-mortem examination. Post-mortem, was conducted by P.W. 7 a Post Graduate Student in the Forensic and Toxicology Department. A case under section 302, I.P.C. was registered by P.W. 10 on his own information on the basis of the Post Mortem report (Ext 2) Ext 6 is the formal F.I.R. which was recorded by P.W. 10.

(3.) To further its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses, description of some of which has been indicated above. Except P.W. 4, the brother of the deceased, evidence of other witnesses is not of much consequence, except that it throws some light on the question as to whether there was any marital relationship between the deceased and the accused. The accused took a plea of denial of the incident as alleged.