CHENIA ALIAS DHANAR DOMB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 20th October, 1964 (Tuesday) was the day of Kumar Purnima, Moti Majhiani (the deceased) wore a number of gold and silver ornaments and went to the weekly market at Katagam. Amongst others she was wearing 3 gold Dhanamalis, 1 gold Ginimali and a gold Ball (a type of ear-ring ). With these ornaments on she went to bed after taking her meals. Next morning on 21-10-64 she was found dead in the room in which she was sleeping. Dalbandhu Majhi (P. W. 1), son of the deceased lodged F. I. R. Ext. 1 at 11-30 a. M. on 21-10-64 at Kodinga P. S. 12 miles away from Landuguda, the village of the deceased. In the F. I. R. it was clearly mentioned that 3 gold Dhanmalis, 1 gold Ginimali and gold Bali had been taken away from her body. P. Ws. 11 and 12 caught hold of the accused and produced him before P. W. 13, the Officer-incharge, nawrangpur P. S. , who arrested him at 4 p. m. , on 26-10-64. At the time of apprehension, 2 gold Dhanamalis (Mos. VI and VI-1) were seized from the body of the accused. The accused was in the village in the night of occurrence and left for village Bansiagunda in the morning of 21-10-64 where he stayed with P. VV. 18. (whose sister Kumari was married to the accused), who saw some gold and silver ornaments with the accused. After staying there for 2 days, he left Bansiagunda on 23rd morning and came to nawrangpur. There he sold a gold Bali to P. W. 3. That very day he went to Nuakot which is the village of his sister P. W. 17 and her husband P. W. 16. On 24-10-64 he went to Ampani weekly hat and purchased some new clothings and soaps. He gave P. Ws. 16 and 17 the gold Ginimali (M. O. V), the new cloth and two soaps purchased from the weekly hat. On 25-10-64 he left Nuakot and returned to nawrangpur. On 24-10-64 he sold a portion of a Dhanamali and was apprehended by P. Ws. 11 and 12 while he was moving in the market. That accused admits that he is a very poor man and did not own any gold or silver. He was formerly a farm servant under P. W. 1. On the aforesaid facts the prosecution case is that the accused murdered the deceased by striking the head with a stone (M. O. XIII) and removed the ornaments, a portion of which he sold away and the rest of which was recovered from him. The defence is one of complete denial of the prosecution case. The possession of the ornaments was also denied. The learned Sessions Judge convicted him under Sections 457, 397 and 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death under Section 302. No separate sentence was passed under Sections 457 and 397. The reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge under section 374 Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the sentence of death. The Criminal appeal has been filed by the accused against the order of conviction.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY nobody had seen the occurrence. The conviction has been based on the following findings:

(3.) IT is not disputed that the death was homicidal. The doctor (P. W. 10) stated that a blow with M. O. VIII on the left temporal region, while the deceased was lying on right side of her head, could cause ail the injuries mentioned in the Post mortem Report (Ex. 12 ). The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death within 4 to 5 minutes of their infliction and that the injuries were homicidal. Mr. Panda did not rightly assail the finding of the learned Sessions judge. We have no doubts in our mind that death was caused by the striking of m. O. VIII on the head of the deceased.