STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KIRAN KUMAR BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions trial case No. 185 of 2002, the appellant Kiran Kumar Bedi has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of the deceased Mahendra and Sumitra and under Section 307, IPC for attempting to murder the injured Bhubaneswari He has been sentenced with a punishment of death for the offence committed under Section 302, IPC along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months and has been furthr sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence committed under Section 307, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri.

(2.) The convict has also preferred JCRLA No. 15 of 2004 from the prison challenging the conviction and sentence as stated above. The sentence of death having been passed against him, the matter has been referred to this Court under Section 366, Cr. P.C. in DSREF No. 1 of 2004 for confirmation of the said sentence.

(3.) One Bhramarlal Purohit, the father of the two deceased persons who originally belongs to the State of Rajasthan, has been carrying on whole-sale bangle business at Red-Cross Road, Puri town since the year 1997. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-Kiran Kumar Bedi was supplying bangles to the said Bhramarlal Purohit for which said Bhramarlal developed acquaintance with the accused. Sometimes the accused was staying in the house of Bhramarlal during his visit to Puri. The accused came to the house of Bhramarlal on 3-12-2001 around 8.30 p.m. and stated before him that as he could not invite them to his marriage which has taken place in the meanwhile, he had brought some sweets (Ladu) and distributed the same to the inmates of the house of Bhramarlal. He took food in their house and slept in one room in the ground floor. Two other bangle dealers, namely, Kedar Mohan Dora (P.W. 4) and Keshab Dora (P.W. 5) of Brahmagiri had also come to the house of Bhramarlal in connection with their business that day. The injured-informant-Bhubaneswari Purohit (P.W. 6) who is the daughter of said Bhramarlal (P.W. 14) and her elder sister Sumitra (deceased) had slept in one cot whereas her elder brother Mahendra (another deceased) slept in another cot in one room in the first floor of the house. Bhramarlal and his wife slept in the first floor of the house in a separate room. At about 1 a.m. in the night, the accused asked for drinking water which was provided to him by the informant (P.W. 6). After giving water to the accused, the informant went and slept in the first floor. The prosecution further alleges that at about 2 a.m. in the night, the accused went to the first floor and assaulted Mahendra Purohit by means of a knife while he was asleep. Hearing the alarm raised by Mahendra, the informant got up and protested. On such protest, the accused gagged her mouth and assaulted her by means of the said knife. Thereafter, the elder sister of the informant Sumitra also got up and the accused dealt knife blows on Sumitra. As a result of such assault, she fell down on the ground with profuse bleeding. After the incident, the accused came down to the ground floor. After hearing noise, the other persons who were sleeping in the ground floor came to the first floor and saw the incident. The deceased Sumitra, deceased Mahendra and Bhubaneswari (P.W.6) were taken to the District Headquarters hospital, Puri by the police who arrived at the spot soon after the incident on being informed by the watch-man (P.W. 3). Sumitra died in the hospital at Puri next day. Deceased Mahendra and the injured-informant were shifted to the S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack where Mahendra succumbed to the injuries after three days. While at the hospital at Puri, P.W. 6 lodged a written report on 4-12-2001 at about 4-30 a.m. in the early morning at Kumbharapara Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered and the police took up investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302, 307, 324, IPC. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the charges under the above sections were framed against the accused.