RABINDRA KUMAR MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals have been filed by the same accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore through different set of Advocates. Therefore, both the appeals were listed together and heard. The Appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that deceased is the wife of the Appellant. After marriage, they lived happily together and as the deceased could not give birth to a child, the Appellant started ill -treating her and assaulted her. It is also alleged in the FIR that on certain occasions the deceased was driven away from the house of the Appellant and on one such occasion she had taken shelter in the house of P.W. 7. With the intervention of the villagers she was again taken back to the house of the Appellant and both of them lived together. In the night of 24/25.1.93 the dead body was lying in the house of the Appellant with the injuries on her person. Getting information of such death, P.W. 1 who is the father of the deceased came to the village and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the house of the Appellant. The left eyeball of the deceased was scooped out and she was lying in a pool of blood. The Appellant was absent at home. Having learnt from P. Ws. 2 and 3 that the deceased was beaten to death by the Appellant, police was informed and when the I.O. (P.W. 10) came to the spot, P.W. 1 was there. The report given by him orally was reduced into writing and the same was treated as F.I.R. and the case was investigated and charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charge. 11 (eleven) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness was examined on behalf of the Appellant. There being no eye -witness to the occurrence, considering the circumstantial evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him there under.