LAWS(ORI)-2006-9-39

SITA MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On September 13, 2006
Sita Majhi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD argument from both the parties and the judgment is as follows.

(2.) ACCUSED was charged for the murder of his wife Minjai Majhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and attempt to murder of his mother -in -law Kamala Majhi (P.W.9). He was found guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Similarly, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore found the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. in as much as offence under Section 307, I.P.C. for inflicting injury to P.W.8. For the said conviction, Appellant was sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently. Appellant has challenged that judgment and order of conviction in this Jail Crl. Appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge considered the post -mortem report (Ext. 1), the opinion report of the doctor (Ext. 2) and the Evidence of the doctor (P.W.3). It appears from such evidence that deceased sustained lacerated injuries on the face and mouth, as a result of which the maxilla and mandible were completely damaged and teeth had come out. Those injuries were as many as eight external and two corresponding internal injuries. Opinion of P.W.3 was that all the injuries were ante -mortem in nature. Such injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and that deceased suffered homicidal death. For reasons best known to the accused, a whimsical defence suggestion was given that such injuries were possible due to collapse of the house, but as Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly rejected such a possibility due to lack of evidence, we find no reason to re -examine that aspect. In course of argument before us as well Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not challenge to the factual finding recorded by the Trial Court on the homicidal death of the deceased. Therefore, we concur with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased suffered homicidal death.