GOBINDA SOREN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dtd. 12.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 20 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.2001 the informant-Mitu Patra along with one Dukhia Marandi-P.W. 2 appeared before the Thakurmunda Police Station and reported that P.W. 2 told him regarding murder of Mani Soren, wife of the appellant in the last night by some unknown persons causing cut injury on her person as a result of which she died at the spot. The informant by hearing this came to the house of the appellant and found the wife of the appellant aged about 50 years was lying inside the house in a pool of blood. Her chest, face and hands were cut by means of some sharp cutting weapon. The informant asked about the matter to the appellant but he told that the deceased was found sleeping on a cot and she herself fell down on the ground from the cot. The appellant instead of informing his neighbourers went to his son, who was staying at the adjacent locality. The blood stained shirt and cloth of the appellant were lying at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid information the Officer-in-Charge of Thakurmunda P.S. treating the same as an F.I.R. registered Thakurmunda P.S. Case No. 33 of 2001 and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant.

(2.) The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited several documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 13. The weapon of offence was marked as M.O.I. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W. 1 was the informant and P.W. 2 was the post occurrence witness before whom the appellant made extra judicial confession. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses. P.W. 5 is the son of the deceased and P.W. 7 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. P.W. 8 is the mother-in-law of the appellant and P.W. 9 was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 was the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body.

(3.) The trial court relying on the evidence of the witnesses and the evidence of P.W. 10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder.