JAGABANDHU MAHANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to Murrey Strawe, family is 'the most violent of all civilian institutions'. It is really so? The case presented by the prosecution in this case may provide a pointer. A husband is alleged to have killed his wife and his own daughter is the principal witness for the prosecution besides the wife of his nephew who had been staying in his house and looking after his properties. The case presents a violent act on the part of the husband and also a violent attitude on the part of his close relations in involving him.

(2.) The appellant is alleged to have done to death his second wife Sundari Dei (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) whom he had taken in marriage after he and his first wife failed to get a son. The reason for the murder, which occurred during the night of May 17/18, 1979 in village Madanpur in the district of Cuttack, by the appellant along with his two companions, unknown and unidentified, by inflicting blows on the chest of the deceased with a dagger, was the refusal of the deceased to allow and keep in his house his daughter Gouri, born through his first wife and Guari's husband to look after him and his properties, after which the appellant had remained in Calcutta and had forlorn the deceased and the other members of his family and did not even send money for their sustenance. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Ramachandra (P.W.5), a nephew of the appellant, investigation was taken up and on its completion, a charge-sheet was placed. On commitment, the appellant was prosecuted being charged under S.302 of the Penal Code.

(3.) To bring home the charge, reliance had been placed by the prosecution on the evidence of eight witnesses of whom P.W.5 was the first-informant and P.Ws.1 and 3 had testified about their seeing the appellant with a blood-stained dagger near the deceased who succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Duryodhan Mohanty (P.W.2), one of the two neighbours, the other being Bidyadhar Swain (not examined), had given evidence that P.W.1 had informed him about the occurrence during the night itself when he came to the house of the appellant on hearing a hullah. The appellant had denied the allegations made against him and as would appear from his statement and the suggestions made to the witnesses for the prosecution, his plea was that P.W.5, who had set up P.Ws. 1 and 3 who were under his care and custody to falsely involve him in the crime. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had established its case. For his conviction under S.302 of the Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.