PRAVAKAR SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the sole appellant Pravakar Swain is directed against the judgment dated 2.3.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.7.1991 at or about 6.05 A.M. P.W. 1 Anil Kumar Swain lodged a written complaint at Gangapur Police Station stating, inter alia that on 1.7.1991 his father Satyabadi Swain (since deceased) went to Bhanjanagar and at that time around 10 A.M. in the morning the appellant Pravakar Swain of village Dubalunda came to the house of P.W.I and enquired about the deceased as he wanted to purchase a motor-cycle from the deceased. P.W.I accordingly informed the appellant that the deceased had gone to Bhanjanagar. Despite the aforesaid, the appellant waited in the house of P.W. 1 on that day till 5 P.M. when the deceased returned back to his house and thereafter a discussion between the appellant and the deceased was held with regard to the vehicle (motor-cycle), and price for the same was ultimately settled at Rs. 16,500/-. However, the appellant stated that at that point of time he did not have the money with him and therefore, the appellant requested the deceased to go to his house on the next day (2.7.1991) in the morning when he would make the payment after withdrawing money from the bank. As it was already evening, on being requested by the appellant, the deceased on his motor-cycle carried the appellant to his village, and thereafter the deceased came back to his house at 8 P.M. However, on 2.7.1991 around 10.A.M. in the morning the deceased went to the house of the appellant. Since then, the deceased did not return home. On the next morning around 8 P.M. (3.7.1991), the appellant came to the house of P.W.I without the deceased on the motor-cycle which belonged to the deceased. Not seeing his father, when P.W.I asked the appellant, he was informed that the deceased slept last night in the house of the appellant and on the next morning he left his house. In these circumstances, the appellant came with the motor-cycle to the house of the informant. Hearing such news, P.W. 1 along with his cousin brother P.W.2 Sanjay Kumar Swain went to the house of Banamali Swain of village Vegiput on the same motor-cycle, but they returned there from as they failed to trace out the deceased. However, P.W.I remained at Konteikoli Chhak, while the appellant along with P.W.2 Sanjay Kumar Swain went to Luduludi village. Thereafter, they together came to village Sadara hoping that the deceased might have returned home meanwhile. Not finding the deceased, even at that time, all three together went to Dubalunda village on the motor-cycle. In the house of appellant at Dubalunda village they found a pair of leather boot of the deceased kept in front of the room. They also noticed bad smell coming from that house. Blood stains were seen on the walls of the room. Having seen this, the appellant told them to search for the deceased further and in course of such search they came to Kshetribarpur village through some other villages mentioned in the complaint, but they could not trace out the deceased. In these circumstances, the informant suspected that the appellant might have murdered the deceased and concealed his body in his house. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, an F.I.R. was registered at Gangapur Police Station against the appellant. After usual investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302,I.P.C. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On transfer, the case was ultimately tried before the learned trial Court.

(3.) On perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court framed a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The defence of the appellant was that of complete denial. Of course on his behalf, two D.Ws. were examined. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated.