RAJIN @ RAJINDRA DIP Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the Appellant Rajin @ Rajindra Dip is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 62/16 of 1993 convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 28.12.1992 at about 2.00 P.M., P.W. 3, Madhu Dip verbally reported to the Officer -in -charge of Kantabanji Police Station alleging, inter alia that in the morning of that day he had been to the village Chatuanka and thereafter he came back to his village around noon time. Soon after P.W. 3 alighted from the Bus at the bus stand of his village, his father P.W. 6 Bana Dip told him that around 10 A.M. on that very day his wife (since deceased) was murdered at Khaliamunda Tank. The deceased was murdered by the Appellant himself. Upon hearing this news, P.W. 3 being the informant rushed to the Khalikamunda Tank and found his wife lying dead at the bathing ghat with several punctured wounds on her body. P.W. 3 further learnt from his father P.W. 6 and his son that the Appellant chased the deceased and killed her by assaulting her with a knife. On another occasion about 6/7 months before the aforesaid incident in the month of Baisakha, the Appellant had assaulted the deceased and her sister and for this incident a police case was pending. The informant further alleged in the complaint that out of previous grudge the Appellant killed the deceased. The aforesaid oral complaint was reduced to writing being Ext. 5 and on that basis a case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code was registered at the said Police Station against the Appellant. After usual investigation police submitted charge sheet under Section 302, Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. In usual course case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Balangir and upon being transferred the case was ultimately tried before the trial court. On perusal of the materials on record, learned trial court framed charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code against the Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. In course of trial in all eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the Appellant. The plea of the Appellant before the trial court was one of the complete denial of the prosecution case as alleged. He also took the plea of alibi by stating that since 4/5 days prior to the occurrence he was away from the village of occurrence and he was in Balangir Town. On completion of the trial the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated.

(3.) THE evidence of P.W. 1, Judhistir Putel before the trial court in brief is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 28.12.1992 around 8 O' clock in the morning he saw the Appellant in his village bus stand. However from there he went to another village on a bicycle. He returned to the village and when he reached the bus stand of the village around 11. 00 A.M. he found P.W. 6 Bana Dip being the father of P.W. 3 at the bus stand of the village itself. He found P.W. 6 weeping. This witness was told by P.W. 6 that the Appellant had killed his daughter -in -law Mathura by assaulting her with a knife and fled away. On hearing this, this witness along with P.W. 6 went to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was lying dead at the bathing ghat of Khaliamunda tank of their village. His evidence establishes one thing that on the date of occurrence itself around eight in the morning the Appellant was found in the village itself. On that very day around 3 P.M. he accompanied the police party to Khaliamunda tank where the dead body was lying. There, police seized some small articles as mentioned in his evidence which were found scattered near the place of occurrence. He signed the seizure list. Police also seized some stones containing blood stains and he signed the seizure list. Apart from the aforesaid and other seizure memos, the Police Officer held inquest over the dead body and this witness put his signature as an inquest witness. When inquest was held, this witness found about 15/16 bleeding injuries on the person of the deceased and the said injuries appeared to him to have been caused by a knife. We scanned the evidence of his witness during cross -examination also. We find that nothing important could be elicited from this witness during such cross -examination which could impeach the credibility of this witness. On scanning the evidence, we find that there is absolutely nothing to disbelieve this witness. This witness has specifically stated that on the date of occurrence itself around 8.00 A.M. in the morning the Appellant was found in his village itself. The evidence of this witness belies the claim of the Appellant that on the date of occurrence he was not in the village and he was in another place.