GANDU KERKETA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal from Special Jail, Rourkeia, Gandu Karketa (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality, of his conviction for an offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Judge').

(2.) FILTERING out unnecessary details prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows : On 8 -8 -1989, there was marriage function in the house of Udaya Tanti. Chanhati Karketa (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who was the wife of the accused, wanted to participate in the dance which was going on in the marriage function. The accused forbade her to participate in the dance, but the deceased did not pay any heed to the protest of the accused and started to go out of the house. The accused became angry, caught hold of her and threw her on a heap of stone and then dealt several blows on her head and face with a stone. As a result of assaults, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. This ghastly act was witnessed by Anil, the minor son of the accused and the deceased, who went weeping to the house of Matias, where Akli Karketa (PW 7), the mother of the accused, and Sima Karketa (PW 6), the daughter of the accused were present. He narrated the incident before them. PWs 6 and 7 rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying unconscious. The other villagers were informed and before them also. Anil made a statement implicating the accused with the assaults. The deceased was removed to the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela where she died on 25 -3 -1S89. One of the villagers Billen Tirkey (PW 5) lodged FIR at the Police Station, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, charge -sheet was submitted. The accused took plea of false implication and pleaded innocence.

(3.) MR . R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the accused -appellant has urged that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and learned trial Judge fell into errors of law in relying on the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 7, since they had no direct knowledge about the occurrence and their source of information was Anil, the son of the accused and the deceased who was not examined as a witness. The conviction having been based on hearsay evidence and circumstances which have no evidentiary value, the accused is entitled to an order of acquittal. Learned counsel for State on the other hand, supported the judgment and conviction of learned trial Judge.