SUKRI JANIANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a tribal lady from the district of Koraput, stands convicted under section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the CedeT) for having committed the murder of her husband Sukri Jani (to be refered to hereinafter as the deceased) at about 12 noon on May 10, 1980 by first hitting him by means of a crow-bar (M.O.I) and then by giving several blows by means of a stone (M.O.III) resulting in his death. The appellant, it was alleged, told her son (P. W.6) that the deceased bad committed suicide and receiving this information, P. W.6 called out the villagers before whom the appellant also gave out that the deceased had committed suicide. A part of the dead body was hanging and a rope had been fixed to the roof. The body bad been covered by a piece of cloth. P W. 1 lodged a report in this regard before P.W. 10, the Assistant SubInspector of Police attached to Jhorigam Police Station, who made a station diary entry (Ext. 3) and registered an Unnatural Death Case. P.W. 10 proceeded to the spot after sending information to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. P.W. 10 suspected it to be a case of homicide. On the report made by P-W.6 on the spot, naming his mother as the assailant of the deceased, the first information report (Ext. 4) was drawn up by P.W. 10 who held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. The appellant was arrested and while in custody, her statement led to the discovery of two crowbars (M.Os. I and II) in the land of P.W. 2 Sania. A piece of stone (M.O. III) was seized from the kitchen of the house of the appellant on production by her. Her Sari (M.O. IV), which she had worn, was seized. The appellant was forwarded to the court with a request to record her confessional statement P.W. 12, the Special Judicial Magistrate at Umerkote, recorded the confessional statement which had been admitted in evidence as Ext. IS. On the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed and the appellant stood charged under section 302 of the Code.

(2.) The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to establish its case. P.W. 6. the son of the deceased, examined as the sole witness to the occurrence, had named his mother as the assailant of his father in the first information report and in his statement in the course of investigation, but did not support the case of the prosecution in the trial court for which he was put leading questions under section 154 of the Evidence Act. Left without the evidence of P.W. 6, the prosecution relied on the confession of the accused and the recoveries of the incriminating articles referred to above.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, held the appellant guilty of the charge of murder and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life.