GOVINDA BAG Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Padmapur in S.T case No.231/31/8 of 2004 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 304(I), IPC, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- ( one thousand ) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 ( six ) months has been called in question by presenting the appeal from in side the jail.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the appellant had married deceased Kumari as per Hindu rites as well as caste, custom of the parties in the year, 1985. It is stated that on 15.04.2001 during morning hour around 9.00 A.M. the appellant mercilessly assaulted his wife and left her at village- Gidemal near a road under a banyan tree and fled away from the place. It is the further case of the prosecution is that one Mohan Bag and Nepali Sahu having seen the appellant taking his wife and leaving there, when asked him about the same, the appellant maintained silence. So they informed the brother in law of the appellant regarding the serious condition of his sister and the fact about her being left there by the appellant, also about blood oozing out of her face and that she was lying unconscious. Balagopal the brother in law of the appellant arrived and they shifted his sister Kumari to Telpali Hospital in a bullock cart. The matter was then informed to the police and a case was registered against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 307, IPC which led to the commencement of investigation. Kumari for better treatment was shifted to Padmapur, Sub-Divisional Hospital where she died. Inquest was held over the dead body and on police requisition post mortem was conducted. Finally on completion of investigation charge sheet having been submitted and the case having been committed to the court of Sessions the appellant faced the trial for offence under Sections 302/498-A, IPC.

(3.) During trial, prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the appellant examined in total 14 witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant and brother of the deceased, i.e. the brother in law of the appellant. P.W.2 is the witness who claims to have seen the appellant while he was carrying his wife and then to have left the place. P.W. 3 is a witness who has stated about strained relationship between the deceased and the appellant, whereas P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased who has also been examined for the said reason. P.W.5, P.W. 6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W. 9 have also been examined as witnesses in that regard. P.W.10 is the doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination and P.W.11 is the witness to seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.12 and 13 are the doctors who had first examined the deceased and who had given opinion on certain query being made by the investigating officer respectively. P.W. 14 is the investigating officer of this case. Besides the above, prosecution has proved documents such as F.I.R Ext.1, inquest report Ext.2, Post mortem report Ext.3, medical examination report Ext.15 etc. The defence has examined two doctors, one who had admitted the deceased in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Padmapur and other one who had attended the deceased in the hospital and through them the bed head tickets have been proved and marked as Ext. B with a report on query as regards probable cause of death marked as Ext. A.