SAMBARU SABAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sambaru Sabar in this appeal assails the order of conviction and sentence dated 26 -7 -1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi in Sessions Trial Case No. 8/ 94 i.e. Sessions Trial Case No. 150/94 GDC convicting him under Section 325, IPC and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25 -1 -1994 the appellant and his wife returned to their house from Garabandha market at 3.00 p.m. after making some purchase. In that night at about 10.00 p.m. they quarrelled with each other. At about mid -night Mangada Sabar (PW 2) came to Lachhumuda Sabar (PW 1), the father -in -law of the appellant and informed him that the appellant assaulted Raibari to death by means of a lathi. Hearing about the incident from PW 2 the informant (PW 1) along with PW 2 and his son Rama Sabar, son's wife Champa, sister Gurubari, sister's husband Sanku Sabar and some other villagers went to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead in the kitchen. Blood was oozing out from her ear, nose and mouth. The appellant was found in a drunken state. When asked by the informant (PW 1), the appellant told him that as the deceased refused to give him money to purchase liquor, he assaulted her and pushed her for which she fell down on a stone and sustained bleeding injuries whereafter dragging her into the kitchen the killed her by tramping over her neck. On the next day PW 1 orally reported about the occurrence in the police station which was reduced into writing and a case was registered. In course of investigation, police arrested the appellant and finally charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant for an offence under Section 302, IPC. The case ultimately came to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi for trial where the appellant stood charged under Section 302. IPC for committing murder of his wife Raibari to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited the documents; such as the FIR seizure list inquest report, post mortem examination report spot map etc. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, as it appears, believing the evidence relating to extra -judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before the PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, convicted and sentenced appellant as aforesaid.