SURENDRA SABAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stood charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('the Code', for short) with having committed the murder of his wife Laxmi (to be referred to hereinafter as 'the deceased') in his house at Gosaninuagaon in the morning of February 11, 1980. The case presented by the prosecution was that owing to quarrels between the appellant and the deceased over the disposal of some gold ornaments on the person of the latter, the appellant, by means of a knife (M.O. I), killed his wife when he and the deceased were the only persons inside the house while Tulasa @ Babull (P.W. 4) and her brother Babula (P.W. 6), the niece and the nephew respectively of the appellant, who had come to the house of the appellant on the previous day, were absent from the house, P.W. 4 having gone to wash the clothes in the tank and P.W. 6 having gone out for riding on the bicycle of the appellant outside being asked by the appellant. It is further alleged that hearing a cry of the deceased inside the house of the appellant, P.W. 1 on her way to fetch water, looked at the house of the appellant who was standing at the threshold of the outer door and she was told by the appellant to go away and do her own work and when on hearing the cry of his aunt (deceased), P.W. 6 came near the house of the appellant, he noticed the appellant standing at the threshold of his house and the appellant threatened him to go out saying that otherwise he would be slapped and out of fear, P.W. 6 came away with the bicycle and after some time, went and saw the deceased lying dead with injuries on her person in a pool of blood. P.W. 3, the maternal uncle of P.Ws. 4 and 6, was informed about what had happened and he lodged the first information report on the basis of which investigation was taken up by the Officer -in -charge of the police station (P.W. 8). In the course of investigation, the weapon of attack (M.O. 1) stained with blood was recovered from inside the house of the appellant. The appellant had absconded and he surrendered at the Mangalabag Police Station at Cuttack and he was taken to the court at Berhampur in custody. The nail scrappings of the appellant were collected. M.O. 1, the nail scrappings of the appellant and the blood -stained earth and sample earth seized from the spot were sent for chemical examination. Human blood was detected in M.O. 1 and the blood -stained earth seized from the spot. No blood was detected in the nail scrapings. On the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed on the appellant was prosecuted. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and false implication. According to him, he was not present in the house and was in his shop and when he was returning in the afternoon, he heard on the way that his wife had been killed and on coming back home, noticed that the dead body had already been taken to the hospital where he went at about 3 p.m. and at about 7 to 8 p.m., the dead body was brought to his house from the hospital. He had asserted that he had not absconded and had not surrendered at the Managalabag Police Station. According to him, while he was proceeding to Puri in a train via Khurda to perform the funeral rites of the deceased, he was caught hold of by the police authorities at the Khurda Railway Station.

(2.) TO bring home the charge the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. The appellant had not examined any witness in his defence.

(3.) MR . R.K. Rath, appearing on behalf of appellant has taken us through the relevant evidence and has contended that the evidence on which the prosecution has sought reliance is not reliable and cannot be made the foundation of an order of conviction in a case of murder. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the circumstances on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution have been established by acceptable evidence and are sufficient to establish the charge.