SURENDRANATH SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack. According to the prosecution case, the appellant murdered his mother -in -law Haramani in the early morning on 24th of May, 1973.

(2.) TO appreciate the facts of the Case, the relationship of the parties may be indicated. CHAITAN Widow -Haramani (murdered) | ____________________________________________________ ||| Sarala Oouri Kanohan married to Surendra married to (Appellant) Bishnu || son - Basu daughter - Soubhagini Chaitan died sometime in 1969. Bishnu was serving in the Raj Bhavan at Bhubaneshwar and was living along with his wife. Kanchan was living with Bishnu. Surendra was living as a domesticated son -in -law in Chaitan's house. His son Basu was living with Bishnu while Bishnu's daughter Soubhagini was living with Sarala in the village. The residential house consists of three apartments. One portion was occupied by deceased Haramani. According to P.W. 2, the apartment occupied by Haramani had two living rooms and a kitchen. In the apartment close to Haramani's lived Balaram, a distant relation of Chaitan. Balaram is husband of P.W. 2, father of P.W. 8 and father -in -law of P.W. 1. In that apartment there were two rooms on the north and a kitchen on the east. The other apartment provided the residential accommodation for the appellant and his family. While P.W. 2's apartment was separated by a brickwall, the other apartment occupied by the deceased and the appellant were virtually one. Surendra and Haramani were not pulling on well. On 23 -5 -1973, when Dhula Samal (P.W. 7), a bhag chasi engaged by Haramani, was ploughing the bari lands, the appellant prevented him and raised a quarrel. From out of the incident, there had been some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Early in the morning of 24 -5 -1973 while Haramani was cleaning the floor of the kitchen, prosecution alleged, appellant came there with a knife (M.O. 1) in his hand and gave many stab injuries on her as a result whereof she died instantaneously. Sometime before the occurrence, Balaram and Bhikari had gone away to the fields along with labourers. P.W. 1 had gone to the well, while P.W. 2 had gone away to ease herself. Within the house were the little girl Soubhagini and Haramani. Hearing the cry of Soubhagini, P.W. 2 returned to the house and noticed the ghastly act. She ran to the fields and called back P.W. 8 who by 9 A.M. reported the matter at the police station. Investigation followed and ultimately the appellant was sent up for trial.

(3.) P .W. 2 is the sole eye -witness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 has been taken as a post -occurrence witness. P. Ws. 3 and 6 supported the extra -judicial confession. P.W. 7 spoke about the previous day's quarrel which supplied the motive for the offence. P, W. 8 is the informant. P.W. 9 is the doctor who conducted the post -mortem examination. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer. Other P. Ws. were formal witnesses. On the side of the defence, a doctor was also examined as D.W. 1.