STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SADASIBA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned C.J.M. -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge, Rayagada acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Sections 498 -A/306, I.P.C. Prosecution case is that the Respondent & deceased -Sravanti were in love with each other. On 23.6.1995 their marriage was solemnized. It is stated that the Respondent at the time of marriage was an employee of State Government working as an Excise Constable and posted at Kashipur. It is further stated that deceased -Sravanti and the Respondent were staying at Kashipur. It is the case of the prosecution that during their stay at Kashipur the Respondent developed some extramarital relationship with another lady (P.W. 11) to the utter disliking of the deceased. On 17.4.1996 P.W. 10 one of the sisters of P.W. 11 came to Kashipur and went to the house of the Respondent. There she informed the Respondent about her sister Priya's illness and that she was lying on bed with fever, expressing her desire to see the Respondent. It is stated that during noon hour without the knowledge of the deceased, the; Respondent went to the house of P.W. 11, stayed for sometime there and returned in the afternoon. The deceased having come to know that the Respondent had gone to see that lady -love got terribly annoyed and there was a quarrel between them. In course of that the Respondent is said to have assaulted the deceased and broke her bangles. In the afternoon around 4.30 p.m. the deceased being hyper sentimental, poured kerosene over her body and set herself to fire after closing the door from inside. The villager seeing emission of smoke went to the house of the Respondent & opened the door and brought the deceased out of the house. The information being given at the Police Station, investigation of the case commenced. The deceased sustained eighty percent burn injuries and was removed to the hospital. On that day around 9.40 a.m. she died. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet being submitted placing the Respondent for trial for commission of offence under Sections 498A/306, I.P.C. he faced the trial. He having acquitted & sentenced as above, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE Respondent during the trial took the plea of absence of their complicity in commission of the said crime and he further stated that the death of Sravanti occurred due to an accidental fire and she did not commit suicide.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submits that the appreciation of evidence laid by the prosecution as done by the Trial Court is not just and proper. According to him, the Trial Court has unnecessarily given importance to some minor discrepancies which have nothing to do with the substratum of the prosecution. According to him, the foundational facts being proved, the Trial Court ought to have drawn the presumption under Section 113(A), of the Evidence Act and accordingly the Court below in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the side of the Respondent ought to have convicted the Respondent. Therefore, he urged that this is a fit case for interference with the order of acquittal.